15 greatest players all time per gender

[cokebottle]

Women:

1. Serena Williams
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Chris Evert
4. Justine Henin
5. Margaret Court
6. Venus Williams
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Billie Jean King
10. Evonne Goolagong
11. Maria Bueno
12. Tracy Austin
13. Alice Marble
14. Doris Hart
15. Louise Brough

If you are wondering where Graf and Seles are I have Graf at #37 and Seles at #52


Men:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Rod Laver
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Don Budge
6. Bill Tilden
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jimmy Connors
11. John McEnroe
12. Henri Cochet
13. Rene Lacoste
14. Jack Kramer
15. Andre Agassi

Federer is at #41

 

[rolandg]

Honestly mate, you're posts are funny and help pass the time at work, but isn't it time for school?

 

[egn]

Women:

1. Serena Williams ridiculous..over martina and chris on what grounds? being unable to stay in shape..inconsistency..seriously
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Chris Evert
4. Justine Heninagain great but too high
5. Margaret Court
6. Venus Williamstoo high
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Billie Jean Kingshould be higher..
10. Evonne Goolagonghigher..

11. Maria Bueno
12. Tracy Austin
13. Alice Marble
14. Doris Hart
15. Louise Brough
nope to all the last 5

If you are wondering where Graf and Seles are I have Graf at #37 and Seles at #52


Men:
1. Rafael Nadal NO
2. Rod Laver up 1 =]
3. Ken Rosewallehh would have him lower
4. Bjorn Borg play
5. Don Budge iffy due to outside open era
6. Bill Tilden once again same reason as 5
7. Pancho Gonzales ^^^
8. Pete Sampras too lower
9. Ivan Lendl close
10. Jimmy Connors
11. John McEnroe switch 10 with 11
12. Henri Cochet
13. Rene Lacoste
14. Jack Kramerthese guys make it but no Fed?
15. Andre Agassiwhy so low?

Federer is at #41

Your list is pure expression of your
a) bias
b) lack of tennis knowledge
c) double standards

 

[boredone3456]

Here is a more appropriate list for the women...not knowing enough about the men to play before the 1990s apart from just slam numbers I won't make a list.

Women:
1. Martina Navratilova
2/3. Margaret Court ( her and Steffi are very very close)
2/3. Steffi Graf
4. Chris Evert ( mainly because of head to head with Martina)
5. Helen Wills Moody (outide the top 4 because everything I have read suggests really poor competition for her from the rest of the field at the time)
6. Suzanne Leglen (again..the competition factor)
7. Maureen Connolly (her dominance before that tragic accident cannot be denied, she was a force and despite a short career there is no denying how great she was)
8. B.J. King (she was good, but Court really outshined her as did Evert)
9. Monica Seles (could have been higher, but we will never know)
10. Evonne Goolagong (inherently a great player, won 7 slams while having to deal with Evert and Navratilova as well as a host of others, looses points for mental inconsistancy ie "evonne going walkabout")
11. Serena Williams (ok...ten slams cannot be denied and her 02-03 showed what she is truly capable of, but she looses a lot of credit for not being consistantly dedicated to maintaining top form)
12. Alice Marble (everything I have read suggest she was a fearsome opponent)
13. Doris Hart (6 slam and an additional 12 finals, and some serious competition to accomplish that)
14. Margaret Osborne Dupont (won a multitude of slams while never playing the Austrailian Open)
15. Justine Henin (could have gone Higher...but early retirement leaves me wondering)


oh and Venus would be somewhere aroung 17 or 18....apart from Wimbledon she doesn't have a ton to show for herself when compared to the 15 listed above.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Women:

1. Serena Williams
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Chris Evert
4. Justine Henin
5. Margaret Court
6. Venus Williams
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Billie Jean King
10. Evonne Goolagong
11. Maria Bueno
12. Tracy Austin
13. Alice Marble
14. Doris Hart
15. Louise Brough

If you are wondering where Graf and Seles are I have Graf at #37 and Seles at #52


Men:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Rod Laver
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Don Budge
6. Bill Tilden
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jimmy Connors
11. John McEnroe
12. Henri Cochet
13. Rene Lacoste
14. Jack Kramer
15. Andre Agassi

Federer is at #41

we have reached a new low.

 

[CyBorg]

Your list is pure expression of your
a) bias
b) lack of tennis knowledge
c) double standards

I would apply the bolded part to you as well. Did tennis players suddenly go from bad to good when the open era began?

 

[Warriorroger]

Women:

1. Serena Williams
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Chris Evert
4. Justine Henin
5. Margaret Court
6. Venus Williams
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Billie Jean King
10. Evonne Goolagong
11. Maria Bueno
12. Tracy Austin
13. Alice Marble
14. Doris Hart
15. Louise Brough

If you are wondering where Graf and Seles are I have Graf at #37 and Seles at #52


Men:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Rod Laver
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Don Budge
6. Bill Tilden
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jimmy Connors
11. John McEnroe
12. Henri Cochet
13. Rene Lacoste
14. Jack Kramer
15. Andre Agassi

Federer is at #41

You are funny (I mean that) If you are cute as well, I would like to meet you

 

[egn]

I would apply the bolded part to you as well. Did tennis players suddenly go from bad to good when the open era began?

never said they were bad i was just saying their position is iffy. I personally would put pancho number 1. It's just its hard to compare them, budge got the year slam but it was all basically one or two surfaces at the time and he kind of vanished from tennis after that. You have tons of issue with pre open era players due to the fact that there is little to compare them across. I give highlight to Budge but he vanished really fast..I never said they were bad. Pancho should be above the other two by far I would even make the case for Pancho being #1. It was not lack of talent it is just hard placing open era players and non open era players on the same list.

 

[CyBorg]

never said they were bad i was just saying their position is iffy. I personally would put pancho number 1. It's just its hard to compare them, budge got the year slam but it was all basically one or two surfaces at the time and he kind of vanished from tennis after that.

Budge never vanished. You mean he turned pro? He was still winning important titles on the pro circuit (on more than just two surfaces) for a number of years before the world war wiped out some of his peak. But he was still playing for some of those years and after.

You have tons of issue with pre open era players due to the fact that there is little to compare them across. I give highlight to Budge but he vanished really fast..I never said they were bad.

The only real issue is WWII. Aside from that there is no issue aside from folks not willing to read up about the pro circuit. There are a lot of posts and comprehensive results for those years.

Pancho should be above the other two by far I would even make the case for Pancho being #1. It was not lack of talent it is just hard placing open era players and non open era players on the same list.

Pancho was the #1 player in the sport for about six or so years. We know this because we can assess his dominance by looking up his results against his contemporaries. We know, for example, that he was a dominant player on grass, wood and carpet surfaces, but had weaker results on clay. We also know what some of the top events of the time are - posters like SgtJohn have spent some time providing this information.

 

[egn]

Budge never vanished. You mean he turned pro? He was still winning important titles on the pro circuit for a number of years before the world war wiped out some of his peak. But he was still playing for some of those years and after.



The only real issue is WWII. Aside from that there is no issue aside from folks not willing to read up about the pro circuit. There are a lot of posts and comprehensive results for those years.



Pancho was the #1 player in the sport for about six or so years. We know this because we can assess his dominance by looking up his results against his contemporaries. We know, for example, that he was a dominant player on grass, wood and carpet surfaces, but had weaker results on clay. We also know what some of the top events of the time are - posters like SgtJohn have spent some time providing this information.

Well issues come with surface differences and the individual circuits where it was more about just playing players in head to heads than tournaments. The war took 3 or 4 years from Budge and I think tarnished the rest of his career as he was out of the loop. I think the biggest problem with pro era is a lot of it was not about tournaments, there were tournaments and then there were the series. Its just a lot goes into weighing between the two. I think Pancho is #1 all time for longevity and dominance.

 

[cristiano]

it's hard not to consider Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Federer, Kramer, Borg, Sampras in the top15 alltime players. Who are the other 6?

It's not so easy. My knowledge of the pre-Tilden era is too poor (even if i can include Doherty in the top15, ma i prefer to speak only from 1920 to 2009).

So, i would include also Lendl and McEnroe and four player between Cochet, Lacoste, Perry, Vines, Connors, Hoad and Agassi waiting soon for Nadal.

Cannot chose between those 7 players. Maybe i'd have a Vines-Hoad-Cochet-Lacoste-Perry-Agassi-Connors , but even e reverse-order is not so bad. So, i'm in trouble if I have to pick my top15 players alltime.

It's easier with the top10

c.

 

[cokebottle]

Here is a more appropriate list for the women...not knowing enough about the men to play before the 1990s apart from just slam numbers I won't make a list.

Women:
1. Martina Navratilova
2/3. Margaret Court ( her and Steffi are very very close)
2/3. Steffi Graf
4. Chris Evert ( mainly because of head to head with Martina)
5. Helen Wills Moody (outide the top 4 because everything I have read suggests really poor competition for her from the rest of the field at the time)
6. Suzanne Leglen (again..the competition factor)
7. Maureen Connolly (her dominance before that tragic accident cannot be denied, she was a force and despite a short career there is no denying how great she was)
8. B.J. King (she was good, but Court really outshined her as did Evert)
9. Monica Seles (could have been higher, but we will never know)
10. Evonne Goolagong (inherently a great player, won 7 slams while having to deal with Evert and Navratilova as well as a host of others, looses points for mental inconsistancy ie "evonne going walkabout")
11. Serena Williams (ok...ten slams cannot be denied and her 02-03 showed what she is truly capable of, but she looses a lot of credit for not being consistantly dedicated to maintaining top form)
12. Alice Marble (everything I have read suggest she was a fearsome opponent)
13. Doris Hart (6 slam and an additional 12 finals, and some serious competition to accomplish that)
14. Margaret Osborne Dupont (won a multitude of slams while never playing the Austrailian Open)
15. Justine Henin (could have gone Higher...but early retirement leaves me wondering)


oh and Venus would be somewhere aroung 17 or 18....apart from Wimbledon she doesn't have a ton to show for herself when compared to the 15 listed above.

That is a pathetic list. You obviously are some huge Graf fangirl to put her so high. She won all her slams beating up on old nannies like Evert and Navratilova at 32 and 33, and then beating up on a moonballer like Sanchez Vicario after Seles was stabbed. Seles in the top 10 is even more ridiculous. Seles won all her slams vs a field of a badly slumping Graf for a couple years, a now 35 and 36 year old nanny Navratilova, and the overhyped druggie Capriati. Like I said the two most overrated players in tennis history.

 

[cokebottle]

By the way an EIGHTEEN year old Graf was DESTROYED in the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals of 1987 by almost THIRTY-ONE year old Martina Navratilova. A prime Graf basically played her grandma and got whooped in the two biggest tournaments of the year by her. Weak.

Seles on the other hand is 2-13 head to head vs the Williams sisters, and even something like 3-14 vs the hefty Davenpork, and Davenpork choked away atleast one match point in all 3 losses too.

 

[boredone3456]

That is a pathetic list. You obviously are some huge Graf fangirl to put her so high. She won all her slams beating up on old nannies like Evert and Navratilova at 32 and 33, and then beating up on a moonballer like Sanchez Vicario after Seles was stabbed. Seles in the top 10 is even more ridiculous. Seles won all her slams vs a field of a badly slumping Graf for a couple years, a now 35 and 36 year old nanny Navratilova, and the overhyped druggie Capriati. Like I said the two most overrated players in tennis history.

first off i am a a guy.

Second Graf Accomplished more in her singles career then both of your beloved Williams combined. 3rd, you mock Graf for losing to Navratilova in 87 and yet she avenged both of the losses on the way to the golden slam in 1988. 4th, you mock Graf for losing to an, in your opinion, Granny Navratilova, but last I check Venus had a losing Record against Graf, and Serena never demolished Graf Either as their head to head stands at 1-1 with both maches going to 7-5 in the third. According to what I have seen from you, both Williams should have been demolishing the aging Graf and neither were able to do so. Frankly, I think your list is based more on Biased than any other list I have seen, my list is objective, if I went on Biase Evert would be my number 1 because I love her style of play.

 

[chilllaxin006]

do you honestly really mean to have Federer so incredibly low? and below rafa? uhh...no

 

[CyBorg]

Well issues come with surface differences and the individual circuits where it was more about just playing players in head to heads than tournaments. The war took 3 or 4 years from Budge and I think tarnished the rest of his career as he was out of the loop. I think the biggest problem with pro era is a lot of it was not about tournaments, there were tournaments and then there were the series. Its just a lot goes into weighing between the two. I think Pancho is #1 all time for longevity and dominance.

All of this is thin and you're pretty much skirting your non-point.

Budge still put in several excellent years, roughly as many Federer has to date.

The series doesn't problematize anything, unless you wish to look at history strictly on contemporary conventions. Yes, the pros did not participate in the grand slam and they did play series. But that's part of the challenge in looking back on history - you weigh it all together; you don't merely dismiss it.

In addition to Budge, you also dismissed Rosewall and Tilden. Both of whom arguably had better careers than Gonzales.

I don't see how judging Gonzales's accomplishments is any more complicated than judging Rosewall's. Consistency would be nice.

 

[CEvertFan]

Women:

1. Serena Williams
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Chris Evert
4. Justine Henin
5. Margaret Court
6. Venus Williams
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Billie Jean King
10. Evonne Goolagong
11. Maria Bueno
12. Tracy Austin
13. Alice Marble
14. Doris Hart
15. Louise Brough

If you are wondering where Graf and Seles are I have Graf at #37 and Seles at #52


Men:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Rod Laver
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Don Budge
6. Bill Tilden
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jimmy Connors
11. John McEnroe
12. Henri Cochet
13. Rene Lacoste
14. Jack Kramer
15. Andre Agassi

Federer is at #41

Serena over both Evert and Navratilova?!? Laughable.
Henin at #4?!? Ludicrous.
Graf and Seles as low as you have them? Utter nonsense.

Nadal over Laver?!? Too funny.
Rosewall over Borg?!? Sheer stupidity.
Sampras at #8?!? Idiocy.
Federer at #41?!? What are you smoking?

This is the most biased list I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
You really need to read more as you know absolutely nothing about tennis and it's history. Troll City is calling you home. Please go now.

 

[cokebottle]

I alredy explained the things that prove how ungreat Graf are. First Graf:

-as a prime 18 year old was destroyed in both the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals by an almost 31 year old (she turned 31 in November that year) Martina Navratilova.

-as a prime 16 and 17 year old failed to win a major in 1986 while even a 31 year old Evert was able to win a major that year. Even choked away a huge lead and lost to fast court specialist Hana Mandlikova at the French Open that year where she came in as the favorite for the title, and 31 year old Evert went on to win instead.

-in 1987 won only 1 major despite losing only two matches all year, which is pretty pathetic. Destroyed Martina Navratilova in their smallest match that year in the Miami final then struggled to play up to form in their bigger finals they played including even the 1 she won at the French, the sign of a weak mental game.

-in 1986 won 0 majors despite winning 8 tournaments. Again I mentioned her choking loss at the French to a fast court specalist like Mandlikova despite coming into the event on a 25 match win streak including easy wins over Evert and Navratilova in smaller tournament finals on clay. Choked away 3 match points vs Navratilova in the U.S Open semis later that year. Again all signs of a weak mental game.

-lost over a quarter of her matches to 1-time slam champion Gabriela Sabatini.

-at one point in her career lost 7 of 8 matches to 1-time slam champion Gabriela Sabatini.

-In 1991 lost a U.S Open semifinal to 34 year old Martina Navratilova.

-In 1993 lost in the semifinals of a small tournament to 36 year old Martina Navratilova.

-At only 27 years old and still in her prime had to go to five sets on a fast indoor court to beat barely 16 year old Martina Hingis. Lost to 15 year old Martina Hingis earlier that year in a small tournament on clay.

-Had to go to 7-5 in the third set to beat clay court specialist Sanchez Vicario in the 1995 Wimbledon final.

-Lost the 1994 U.S Open final on fast hard courts to clay court specialist Sanchez Vicario.

-was down 6-3, 4-2 in the 1989 U.S Open final vs almost 33 year old Martina Navratilova. Was down 7-5, 2-0 in the 1988 Wimbledon final to 32 year old Martina Navratilova.

-lost in the 1990 Wimbledon semis to Zina Garrison, a player who was one point from losing to grass court clueless Monica Seles in the previous round, and who could get only 5 games in the final vs 33 year old Martina Navratilova in the final.

-lost the 1990 French Open final in straight sets to 16 year old Monica Seles. Won only 1 major in 1990 a year the major winners included: only 16 year old Monica Seles, now 33 year old Martina Navratilova, and 1-time slam winner Gabriela Sabatini.

-still in her prime in 1999 at only 29 years old was overpowered and struggled vs both Williams sisters less mature and not yet in their primes, going 3-3 combined vs them, and generally was on the defensive in all those matches.

 

[cokebottle]

Now on to Seles:

-in her prime lost a set 6-0 in a grand slam semifinal to Mary Joe Fernandez.

-in her prime nearly lost in the U.S Open semifinals to 15 year old Jennifer Capriati.

-in her prime wimped out of playing Wimbledon one year since she was scared of losing. Then the following year at Wimbledon had to go 3 sets to beat 35 year old Martina Navratilova, then lost 6-2, 6-1 in the final to Steffi Graf.

-She has played Wimbledon 9 times total and failed to make the quarterfinals in 4 of those 9, almost half of them. Her losses there include to Katerina Studenikova, Sandrine Testud, a past her prime Natalia Zvereva, Marijana Lucic.

-has a combined 2-13 record vs the Williams sisters.

-lost 4 times to Martina Navratilova past her 34th birthday.

-lost a U.S Open 4th round 6-0, 6-2 to 34 year old Chris Evert.

-has a 3-10 record vs only 3-time major winner Lindsay Davenport. Saved atleast one match point in all 3 wins so really ought to be 0-13 based upon that.

-has a 1-2 record vs fast court specialist Jana Novotna on clay. Her only win she was down 6-4, 3-0 before Novotna choked.

-has a pathetic 5-15 record vs the very soft hitting 5-time slam champion Martina Hingis.

-has played the U.S Open 12 times and only been to the semis 4 times out of 12. Her losses there include to Linda Ferrando, the aforementioned thumping to 34 year old Chris Evert, Irina Spirlea, and Daja Bedanova. Has a combined 1-6 lifetime record vs Steffi Graf, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, and Martina Hingis at the U.S Open, only beating the soft hitting Hingis once in one of her final events before retirement due to foot injury in 2002. Has never beaten Graf, Venus, or Serena on a fast hard court.

-5 of her 9 opponents in the finals of her 9 slam title wins, so over half, include: clay court specialist Sanchez Vicario in a U.S Open final on fast hard courts, Mary Joe Fernandez, 34 year old Martina Navratilova, fast court specialist Jana Novotna on slow hard courts of the Australian Open, and Anke Hubert.

-in 4 Australian Open wins, where 4 of her 9 slams come from, her opponents from quarterfinals onward apart from Graf once (93 finals), and Sanchez Vicario once (92 semis) were: Mary Joe Fernandez twice, Anke Huber three times, Chanda Rubin, Iva Majoli, fast court specialist Jana Novotna, Julie Halard, and a now washed up Gabriela Sabatini (93 semis) who would win only 2 tournaments from mid 92 to her retirement at the end of 1996. Looks like her main obstacles to her Australian Open dominance were she took about half her slams were the legendary Anke Huber, and the timeless Mary Joe Fernandez, LOL!

 

[cokebottle]

Second Graf Accomplished more in her singles career then both of your beloved Williams combined.

If one of the Williams were in their primes were Graf was instead they each would probably have over 30 slams. Who would stop them? Moonballers Sanchez Vicario and Martinez, chokers Sabatini and Novotna, 31 and 32 year old nanny Martina Navratilova, 33 and 34 year old nanny Chris Evert, Seles who the Williams both own totally, 15 and 16 year old Capriati who the Williams both own even in her prime, the mediocre Maleeva sisters, Sukova the stork, the generic baseline game of Mary Joe Fernandez.

3rd, you mock Graf for losing to Navratilova in 87 and yet she avenged both of the losses on the way to the golden slam in 1988.

So prime Graf could not get a set off an almost 31 year old Navratilova in either the Wimbledon or U.S Open finals, and could barely even beat her on clay. Then a prime Graf could finally dominate by taking 3 sets to keep beating a now 31 or 32 year old Navratilova at Wimbledon and the U.S Open. She achieved the Golden Slam in a year her main rivals were Navratilova who turned 32 at years end, and 1-time slam champion Gabriela Sabatini. Wow I am impressed, NOT!

4th, you mock Graf for losing to an, in your opinion, Granny Navratilova, but last I check Venus had a losing Record against Graf, and Serena never demolished Graf Either as their head to head stands at 1-1 with both maches going to 7-5 in the third.

Navratilova was almost 31 at the time of the 87 Wimbledon and U.S Open finals. Graf was only 29 when the Williams were beating her. 29 years old is still in your prime, almost 31 is not. Graf was already in her prime in 1987. Venus and Serena were not in their primes in 1999 when they went 2-2 and 1-1 vs Graf. Another big difference. Graf also could not beat an almost 30 year old Navratilova in the U.S Open semis in 1986 since she choked away 3 match points.

According to what I have seen from you, both Williams should have been demolishing the aging Graf and neither were able to do so.

Graf wasnt aging quite yet and the Williams were not prime yet. They still did better than prime Graf did vs the truly aging Navratilova in late 1986 and 1987.

 

[rolandg]

Cokebottle, you are starting these threads deliberately to be annoying, which is a bit weird anyway, but why do you know so much about people you don't like? You have obviously spent time reading about and researching Graf and Seles, which is very sad, considering you don't think much of them.

 

[cokebottle]

I follow tennis since I enjoy it. It is sad there was ever an era so weak Graf and Seles were the two best players but reality is there was so as someone who watches alot of tennis I couldnt help but see alot of them since there wasnt the depth we see today and nearly every other era to bury them were they belong with their limited skill levels. As overrated and ungreat as Graf and Seles are they were still overall better than Sabatini, Novotna, Fernandez, Sanchez, a very old Navratilova, a very young Capriati, and all the other weaklings of that horrible late 80s to mid 90s time period so I still prefered to watch them over the others at the time, but only because everyone else was so bad.

Seriously, could you imagine prime Graf and prime Seles playing prime Navratilova or prime Evert if they were born around the same time. Or prime Graf and prime Seles playing Venus, Henin, and Serena at their peaks around 2002-2004. Prime Graf and Seles would have been getting bagels handed out to them in those cases. Prime Navratilova, prime Evert, prime Venus, prime Serena, and prime Henin, would all find prime Graf and Seles so easy to play and beat all the time, they would probably think of it as if they were playing Bettina Bunge.

 

[rolandg]

You're very strange, but you're harmless.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

I alredy explained the things that prove how ungreat Graf are. First Graf:

-as a prime 18 year old was destroyed in both the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals by an almost 31 year old (she turned 31 in November that year) Martina Navratilova.

-as a prime 16 and 17 year old failed to win a major in 1986 while even a 31 year old Evert was able to win a major that year. Even choked away a huge lead and lost to fast court specialist Hana Mandlikova at the French Open that year where she came in as the favorite for the title, and 31 year old Evert went on to win instead.

-in 1987 won only 1 major despite losing only two matches all year, which is pretty pathetic. Destroyed Martina Navratilova in their smallest match that year in the Miami final then struggled to play up to form in their bigger finals they played including even the 1 she won at the French, the sign of a weak mental game.

-in 1986 won 0 majors despite winning 8 tournaments. Again I mentioned her choking loss at the French to a fast court specalist like Mandlikova despite coming into the event on a 25 match win streak including easy wins over Evert and Navratilova in smaller tournament finals on clay. Choked away 3 match points vs Navratilova in the U.S Open semis later that year. Again all signs of a weak mental game.

-lost over a quarter of her matches to 1-time slam champion Gabriela Sabatini.

-at one point in her career lost 7 of 8 matches to 1-time slam champion Gabriela Sabatini.

-In 1991 lost a U.S Open semifinal to 34 year old Martina Navratilova.

-In 1993 lost in the semifinals of a small tournament to 36 year old Martina Navratilova.

-At only 27 years old and still in her prime had to go to five sets on a fast indoor court to beat barely 16 year old Martina Hingis. Lost to 15 year old Martina Hingis earlier that year in a small tournament on clay.

-Had to go to 7-5 in the third set to beat clay court specialist Sanchez Vicario in the 1995 Wimbledon final.

-Lost the 1994 U.S Open final on fast hard courts to clay court specialist Sanchez Vicario.

-was down 6-3, 4-2 in the 1989 U.S Open final vs almost 33 year old Martina Navratilova. Was down 7-5, 2-0 in the 1988 Wimbledon final to 32 year old Martina Navratilova.

-lost in the 1990 Wimbledon semis to Zina Garrison, a player who was one point from losing to grass court clueless Monica Seles in the previous round, and who could get only 5 games in the final vs 33 year old Martina Navratilova in the final.

-lost the 1990 French Open final in straight sets to 16 year old Monica Seles. Won only 1 major in 1990 a year the major winners included: only 16 year old Monica Seles, now 33 year old Martina Navratilova, and 1-time slam winner Gabriela Sabatini.

-still in her prime in 1999 at only 29 years old was overpowered and struggled vs both Williams sisters less mature and not yet in their primes, going 3-3 combined vs them, and generally was on the defensive in all those matches.

22 my dear... 22 Slams... one golden slam, 2 calendar slams... you fail extremely hard. Graf has more titles than your beloved serena and venus combined...

 

[GameSampras]

Yea I dont know how u can put anyone ahead of Stefi with her unparalled sucess witth 22 slams. Thats just ridiculous. I do think serena MAY have challenged that if she would have kept her focus on tennis and kept in shape. She was on a roll. But she did struggle with Capriati even at her peak. So I dunno.

 

[Wuornos]

For me it has to be the following since WWII.

See http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=190959 for a explanation of methodology

MEN

1 Roger Federer 2783
2 Rafael Nadal 2759
3 Rod Laver 2752
4 Ivan Lendl 2748
5 Roy Emerson 2735
6 Mats Wilander 2726
7 Björn Borg 2725
8 Frank Sedgman 2724
9 Tony Trabert 2720
10 Pete Sampras 2713
11 Ashley Cooper 2705
12 John McEnroe 2703
13 Jim Courier 2700
14 Ken Rosewall 2685
15 Lew Hoad 2683


WOMEN

1 Martina Navratilova 2817
2 Steffi Graf 2811
3 Monica Seles 2811
4 Margaret Smith Court 2794
5 Chris Evert 2780
6 Serena Williams 2770
7 Maureen Connolly 2758
8 Venus Williams 2740
9 Billie Jean King 2737
10 Martina Hingis 2727
11 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 2714
12 Louise Brough Clapp 2712
13 Maria Bueno 2711
14 Doris Hart 2707
15 Ann Haydon Jones 2705

I know Nadal may be seen as to high by many but I honestly believe the statistical evidence supports this rank.

Regards

Tim

 

[Tennisfan!]

Stupid thread, a lot like this here but this one is the more... just crapppppppp.

btw, BANNED, bye friend, try it again in one year at least!

 

[Bretto]

If one of the Williams were in their primes were Graf was instead they each would probably have over 30 slams.

Too true, on actual ability, they are the best players.

 

[thalivest]

Too true, on actual ability, they are the best players.

Perhaps but only the ability each only showed 2 years apiece, making it close to irrelevant put up against the more accomplished greats. The ones higher on the list instead showed their best ability for 9, 10, 11, 12, even 13 years each.

 

[chaognosis]

For me it has to be the following since WWII.

See http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=190959 for a explanation of methodology

MEN

1 Roger Federer 2783
2 Rafael Nadal 2759
3 Rod Laver 2752
4 Ivan Lendl 2748
5 Roy Emerson 2735
6 Mats Wilander 2726
7 Björn Borg 2725
8 Frank Sedgman 2724
9 Tony Trabert 2720
10 Pete Sampras 2713
11 Ashley Cooper 2705
12 John McEnroe 2703
13 Jim Courier 2700
14 Ken Rosewall 2685
15 Lew Hoad 2683


WOMEN

1 Martina Navratilova 2817
2 Steffi Graf 2811
3 Monica Seles 2811
4 Margaret Smith Court 2794
5 Chris Evert 2780
6 Serena Williams 2770
7 Maureen Connolly 2758
8 Venus Williams 2740
9 Billie Jean King 2737
10 Martina Hingis 2727
11 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 2714
12 Louise Brough Clapp 2712
13 Maria Bueno 2711
14 Doris Hart 2707
15 Ann Haydon Jones 2705

I know Nadal may be seen as to high by many but I honestly believe the statistical evidence supports this rank.

Regards

Tim

Good to see you back, Tim.

With respect to pre-Open Era players, I assume you are still using only amateur data. Could you tell me how many of these peak ratings occur at or near the point when the player turned professional? If that is the case, then it would suggest that these numbers probably do not represent the true performance peak for these players...

 

[LDVTennis]

Stupid thread, a lot like this here but this one is the more... just crapppppppp.

btw, BANNED, bye friend, try it again in one year at least!

Bottle and Coke, BANNED? Really, I hadn't noticed.:razz:

 

[BTURNER]

1. Graf
2 Wills
3. Court
4. Navratilova
5. Evert
6. Lenglen
7. Little Mo
8. S Williams
9. Henin
10. King
11.Lambert Chambers ( She completely dominated every tournament until Lenglen showed up,and gave her fits well after her prime)
12. Seles
13. Louise Brough (14 slam finals when most of her career was in WW2)
14 Goolagong
15. Alice Marble
.

Honorable mentions that may belong here: Molla Mallory, Dupont, Hillyard, V. Williams, Hart, Gibson.Bueno

 

[JW10S]

MEN WOMEN

Laver Court
Federer Navratilova
Sampras Graf
Borg Evert
Gonzalez King
Lendl Seles
Agassi Connolly
Budge Moody
McEnroe Lenglen
Tilden Henin
Connors S. Williams
Kramer V. Williams
Hoad Hingis
Nadal Goolagong
Rosewall Hart

 

[Wuornos]

Good to see you back, Tim.

With respect to pre-Open Era players, I assume you are still using only amateur data. Could you tell me how many of these peak ratings occur at or near the point when the player turned professional? If that is the case, then it would suggest that these numbers probably do not represent the true performance peak for these players...

Hi Chaog

I have recalibrated the ratings since I first posted this list but the order wont have changed or the essential underlying meaning of the data. Its just like switching from Centigrade to Fahrenheit. I just wanted the figures to be more meaningful and so the current scale used would evaluate the top player in the world at about 2700 with the # 10 player being around 2600.

The new list looks like this.

Women

1 Martina Navratilova 2809
2 Steffi Graf 2806
3 Monica Seles 2805
4 Margaret Smith Court 2797
5 Chris Evert 2790
6 Serena Williams 2785
7 Maureen Connolly 2779
8 Venus Williams 2770
9 Billie Jean King 2768
10 Martina Hingis 2763
11 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 2757
12 Louise Brough Clapp 2756
13 Maria Bueno 2755
14 Doris Hart 2754
15 Ann Haydon Jones 2752

Men

1 Roger Federer 2791
2 Rafael Nadal 2779
3 Rod Laver 2776
4 Ivan Lendl 2774
5 Roy Emerson 2768
6 Mats Wilander 2763
7 Björn Borg 2762
8 Frank Sedgman 2762
9 Tony Trabert 2760
10 Pete Sampras 2757
11 Ashley Cooper 2753
12 John McEnroe 2751
13 Jim Courier 2750
14 Ken Rosewall 2742
15 Lew Hoad 2741

Your point about the peak ratings occuring close to the time when players turned pro is exactly right. I have not yet found a way of jumping between the populations and ensuring parity as the # of players transferring to the pro game each year is just to small as well as the stats on the pro game being just to sparse. Players are therefore robbed of their peak playing standard in the pro game.

Having said that many players of the open era achieve high ratings early in their careers like Sampras, Federer and Nadal. Therefore the rating of players from the pre open era after the point in time when they turned pro might not have yielded ratings much higher than that achieved in their amateur career. The exception of course would be Pancho Gonzales who's amateur career before turning pro was very short.

All the new ratings can be found at http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=244754

Regards

Tim

 

[Qubax]

Women:

1. Serena Williams
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Chris Evert
4. Justine Henin
5. Margaret Court
6. Venus Williams
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Billie Jean King
10. Evonne Goolagong
11. Maria Bueno
12. Tracy Austin
13. Alice Marble
14. Doris Hart
15. Louise Brough

If you are wondering where Graf and Seles are I have Graf at #37 and Seles at #52


Men:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Rod Laver
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Don Budge
6. Bill Tilden
7. Pancho Gonzales
8. Pete Sampras
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jimmy Connors
11. John McEnroe
12. Henri Cochet
13. Rene Lacoste
14. Jack Kramer
15. Andre Agassi

Federer is at #41

Steffi Graf won 22 Singles Major titles and she's 37th on your list! You must be looking for attention..

 

[CyBorg]

These numbers don't look useful to me. When you have Wilander ahead of Borg you know you have a problem.

 

[Wuornos]

These numbers don't look useful to me. When you have Wilander ahead of Borg you know you have a problem.

Yes the figures do yield some surprising results.

I think the issue you raise isn't so much Borg being low as Wilander being high.

The thing about PR is they calculate an estimated peak playing standard where there is sufficient statistical evidence to support the claim. Many others evaluate total career achievement as their bench mark. If we were to adapt PR to measure total career achievement the I am sure Borg would be much higher than Willander, however, I believe peak performance over a statistically significant period is the better evaluation tool. Without using this approach players like Maureen Connoly and Monica Seles would be underrated. I suppose it all boils down to the time old cry of what does the word 'Greatness' mean. Despite Wilamders Peak rating he only topped the PR rankings for a period of 1 major, while Borg topped the rankings for a period of 16 majors despite his lower peak. It all has to do with the comparitive strength of opposition in the late 1980s compared with the late 1970s.

When you provide your definition of greatness before compiling your list what criteria do you adopt? Do you consider the quality of opposition faced? If so how do you calculate this? Do you measure dominance or would you evaluate a player with 15% strike rate in majors as better than a player with a 50% strike rate if his career was four times as long. Do you look at the losses of great players as well as their wins or do you subscribe to the point of view that greatness is greatness irrespective of consistency?

All these issues can take an evaluation of players a skew them in one direction or another.

Your not guilty of this Cyborg but the thing that really gets up my nose are people who evaluate one player using one criteria and another using another year. E.g 'Greatness can be evaluated by versatility on surface' but then still insist that players who only ever played on Grass are greats because its popular to say that rather than thinking for themselves. At least PR has its definition and applies it objectively.

I suspect that even if we had a magic box that could exactly evaluate every player from history it would yield a few surprises that are counter to popular opinion.

Consequently it is therefore fallacious to judge any rating methodology on a simple comparison between two players.

To obtain an accurate evaluation it is necessary to compare multiple player rankings.

What Coefficient of Rank Correlation would be acceptable between your list and the Performance Ratings to make you accept that the PR methodology has some validity?

Be interesting to compare your top 50 with PRs and make the necessary calculations.

If you post your top 50 post WWII I will happily carry out the necessary stats.

Happy to do both male and female as this would provide a larger data sample.

Regards

Tim