yatestwile
Rookie
Ooops my bad, I meant Brough for the 2nd one. I fixed it.
Best Women's Players?
- Thread starter WestboroChe
- Start date
Ooops my bad, I meant Brough for the 2nd one. I fixed it.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
If taking my list to 20 it would probably look something like this.
11. Bueno
12. Hart
13. Brough-Clapp
14. Osbourne-Dupont
15. Marble
16. Goolagong
17. Lambert-Chambers
18. Lottie Dodd
19. Henin
20. Venus
Honorable mentions: Mallory, Betz-Addie, Bingley-Hillyard, Wynn-Bolton, Hingis, Gibson...could probably name a few more but if I did should just take the list to 30.
11. Bueno
12. Hart
13. Brough-Clapp
14. Osbourne-Dupont
15. Marble
16. Goolagong
17. Lambert-Chambers
18. Lottie Dodd
19. Henin
20. Venus
Honorable mentions: Mallory, Betz-Addie, Bingley-Hillyard, Wynn-Bolton, Hingis, Gibson...could probably name a few more but if I did should just take the list to 30.
A fine list, but depending on how you are treating doubles, I might at Darleen Hard to your honorable mentions. Seven singles major finals ( only three won), but 18 doubles and mixed doubles won with an additional 5 finals in a very competitive era for doubles is worth a mention. If doubles matters at all, this name should be there.
yatestwile
Rookie
Hmm those seem like too low of rankings for both Henin and Venus for me. No way I would rank someone like Goolagong who won 4 of her 7 majors at the then heavily depleted Australian Open, and was probably never the best player in the world which both Venus and Henin were for atleast 2 years above them at all, let alone by several spots. Plus Seles is presumably in the top 10 and I dont think she is even that much better than either player.
The only case I would see for Hart to be over Brough and Du Pont is the Career Slam although that is a big one. Other than that Brough and Du Pont were more dominant and viewed as top player far more often in the exact same era, even though all three have 6 majors. Plus Brough being dominant at Wimbledon and Du Pont at the U.S Open which were by far the 2 biggest tournaments at the time, unlike today. Hart definitely wasnt dominant at either venue, she didnt even win her first U.S Open until near retirement, the year after Connolly's accident.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
1. Hart made 18 major finals, way more than either than either Du Pont (9 finals) or Brough (14 finals). They each won 6 majors so all those extra finals pushes Hart over both of them.
2. Venus is a Wimbledon centered player. She only has 1 final at the Australian and the French (and that french open final is insanely lucky). If this she played in the 1960s or earlier that really wouldnt be a problem because that was common but in the modern era it most certainly is.
3. Goolagongs career overlapped with King, Court and Evert for pretty hefty chunks, 3 all time greats. She still won 7 majors. She beat Court to win Wimbledon, Evert in 2 different major finals (1 after having a baby), and if not for Evert well who knows how many US Opens she might have won. She also won the year end championships twice beating Evert both times. She also won like 80 singles titles...i think she belongs where she is.
yatestwile
Rookie
Fair enough but if there is a place to be centric it is Wimbledon. Wimbledon even today is the most prestigious tournament, even if the difference is nowhere near what it used to be. I would take a career of 5 Wimbledons and 2 U.S Opens though over a career of 4 Australian Opens at the time it was a heavily devalued slam, 2 Wimbledons 9 years apart, and no U.S Open. I agree she comes across as less versatile and more one dimensional though so she is hard to rank. Her peak play in 2000-2003 was scary good at times though and probably better than virtually anyone in the 11-20 group, and even some inside the top 10.
Henin was the worlds best player in 2003, 2006, 2007, arguably 2004. IMO she deserves a place much higher up than 19th, she was the best and most consistent player in the world a lot longer than most of that 11-20 group, certainly a ton more than Goolagong, Hart, Du Pont, Marble, or even Bueno were, and at a time of much more depth in the game too. Her slam record of 4-2-1-0 is identical to Goolagong's too, and her Wimbledon record close to Goolagong's U.S Open with numerous semi and final losses, minus the French in her time is leaps above what the Australian literal non slam was in Goolagong's time. After all if the Australian were fully credited at the time nearly everyone would have Court as the female GOAT and instead most have her (probably rightly) behind Graf, Serena, Navratilova today, so the same should definitely apply to Goolagong who would be far less likely than Court to ever dominate a fully legit slam as she was never a dominant player or on any surface. Henin dominated the French simply since she was hands down the best on one surface of her day- clay. Bueno due to injuries was never as dominant or consistent as Henin was in 2003-2007 either, even considering she was a contemporary of Court for part of that. Neither were any of Brough, Du Pont, or Hart as good as they each were. Henin did benefit from a lull by Serena, but she faced Serena in 2003 and 2007 when on top, and very good depth in the game with Davenport, Clijsters, Sharapova, at times Venus, Mauresmo, all very strong.
The other factor for me when ranking Henin and Venus is I think Sharapova with 5 slams and the Career Slam belongs in the top 25 probably, and I view Venus and Henin as significantly better than her, in addition to as I said I dont see either as much worse than Seles.
I did not realize Hart made that many slam finals though. Yes that with the Career Slam she pretty much has to be above Brough and Du Pont, especialy when all 3 played in the same era, even if Brough and Du Pont seemed more dominant for a period as players.
I also notice you did not have Gibson and Fry. Where do you rank them? I think of all 5 of Hart, Brough, Du Pont, Gibson, Fry as fairly close, although Fry probably 5th and last of the 5, but she does have that very significant Career Slam too, even if she had to wait for Brough, du Pont, Hart to all be retired/semi retired to get it. I gave Gibson some extra credit for the highly unusual and difficult circumstances she dealt with and overcome and what a trailblazer she was for black women, when if it were strictly on her career merits, I would probably have her lower and behind all of Hart, Brough, and Du Pont, especialy as she didnt win until those were old/gone too, and couldnt even beat Fry in those big matches they played. Still I cant imagine the emotional strength/character it took to conquer the things she had to overcome to be a champion at the time.
Last edited:
I rate du Pont and Hart over Brough because both won the French, which was on par with Wimbledon and US, Brough never got to the finals. Brough did have the H-H advantage over du Pont, but Margret usually ended up #1 from 47-50. I would be curious as to the H-H between Brough and Hart. Brough had the advantage at Wimbledon, Hart at the US. I did get to see du Pont live once, at the East Coast Grass Court Championships, which was a major tune up to Forest Hills. She was in her early forties then, but still a great doubles player. She was still a pretty go singles player as well. I think she was 42 when she won the Wimbledon mixed with Neal Fraser in 62. Goolagong, at her best, was a great player but inconsistent. The main reason she beat Court in their Wimbledon final, rather easily, but because Court was pregnant and not feeling well. Having said that, Goolagong is one of may all time Favorite players, along with Bueno and Henin.
yatestwile
Rookie
I am even more impressed with Goolagong's straight sets win in the semis over King since King generally owned Evonne, and unlike Court was playing very well at that Wimbledon. Huge win for a young Evonne and one she would rarely re-duplicate.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Goolagong, in addition to those 7 majors she won, made an additional 11 finals....11. She was clearly the best in the world in 1971 and made all 3 finals she played in 1972. In fact from 1971-1976 she entered 20 majors and made the finals of 16 of them. She only won 5 of those finals but lost every single one except for 1 of those other 11 to Court, King or Evert...all top 10 all time greats. Her one loss to someone else in a major final was to Wade, a 3 major winner so its not embarassing she lost to her.
During this period she was the unlucky 4th best of a group of exceptional women..much like Murray was/is today. During that period she only once failed to make it to the QF of a major. Following 1976 she became pregnant, then had injury issues that hampered her from time time.
I could see devaluing her if she was winning AO's and bombing out early everywhere else...but she wasn't. It took top 10 all time players to best her at her best, and thats no joke. I stand by where i ranked her.
During this period she was the unlucky 4th best of a group of exceptional women..much like Murray was/is today. During that period she only once failed to make it to the QF of a major. Following 1976 she became pregnant, then had injury issues that hampered her from time time.
I could see devaluing her if she was winning AO's and bombing out early everywhere else...but she wasn't. It took top 10 all time players to best her at her best, and thats no joke. I stand by where i ranked her.
yatestwile
Rookie
I could see her ranked about 16th, I just would never rank her above any of Venus, Henin, or even Bueno is all. Bueno, Hart, Du Pont are a little harder to rank with certainty, and Chambers and the early century players even moreso. All those were the best player in the world a good 2-3 years unlike Goolagong who arguably was 1 year at most, all won many more legit slams of their time than she did, Henin was much more consistent and more dominant, and Venus has far more longevity and was also much more dominant in 2000-2001 than Evonne ever was (and you cant even say automatically well Evonne faced Chris since it is certainly entirely possible Venus at her best could regularly power through Chris, especialy the young Chris of the early to mid 70s Evonne faced, especialy when someone like Austin who had no serve managed it awhile). And all those were pretty dominant on a surface where Goolagong was nowhere.
Goolagong was definitely not bombing outside the Australian but when you break it down outside the Australian she has 2 Wimbledons a whole 9 years apart, 1 Roland Garros title (which she couldnt defend next year against King of all people, considering this is clay), and a whole bunch of final and semi final losses, yes to great opponents but still. And I am pretty sure in any era where all 4 slams were fully attended Bueno, Venus, and Henin would win more than talented but mentally fragile and somewhat underpowered (at the very top level) Evonne everytime. Henin and Bueno would regularly be ranked higher too I believe, Venus with her erratic playing schedule and career maybe not. They are all just more intimidating to face, have a stronger aura about them, are mentally tougher, and have bigger weapons, and in the cases of Venus and Henin are every bit as athletic to boot. Of course that is just my viewpoint, nobody has to agree on it.
Goolagong was definitely not bombing outside the Australian but when you break it down outside the Australian she has 2 Wimbledons a whole 9 years apart, 1 Roland Garros title (which she couldnt defend next year against King of all people, considering this is clay), and a whole bunch of final and semi final losses, yes to great opponents but still. And I am pretty sure in any era where all 4 slams were fully attended Bueno, Venus, and Henin would win more than talented but mentally fragile and somewhat underpowered (at the very top level) Evonne everytime. Henin and Bueno would regularly be ranked higher too I believe, Venus with her erratic playing schedule and career maybe not. They are all just more intimidating to face, have a stronger aura about them, are mentally tougher, and have bigger weapons, and in the cases of Venus and Henin are every bit as athletic to boot. Of course that is just my viewpoint, nobody has to agree on it.
Last edited:
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
The one commentary I will make to this is to point out who won Wimbledon in those 9 years between Evonne's 2 titles
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Yes that kind of record at Wimbledon for a Serve and Volley player is pretty poor, but for crying out loud she only has 1 less Wimbledon that Court or Evert....so not bad at all.
Similar threads
- NadalAgassi
- Former Pro Player Talk
