Chris Chase names his top 10 women's tennis player of all time

samboy01

Banned
I think it's pretty fair. It gives a ranking based on actual accomplishements BUT does mention the Seles stabbing in both Monica's and Steffi's paragraphs. It also saids that without that stabbing, Seles would have been contender for GOAT, but even with being stopped at her prime she still ranks pretty high. But again 6-4 included 3 wins in 1989 against a baby Seles, but that's ok he's forgiven. I agree about Navratilova, that was never in doubt!


Ranking the top-10 women's tennis players of all time

By Chris Chase

On Tuesday, we took issue with Sports Illustrated's proclamation that Serena Williams was the greatest female tennis player of all time. Most of the comments and emails we received on the subject asked the same question — "if Serena's not the best, then who is?"

As a result, Busted Racquet decided to make a list of the top-10 women's tennis players of all time. Feel free to debate, argue, praise or plain tell us we're wrong in the comments, on Twitter or via email at bustedracquet@yahoo.com. We'll post the best replies on Friday.

10. Justine Henin — Seven Grand Slams, 43 titles, 82% win percentage

It was a tough call between Henin and Martina Hingis, but the Belgian gets the No. 10 spot by virtue of her seven Slams (compared to five for Hingis). Not to take anything away from the Swiss star, though. She had more weeks at No. 1 than anyone not named Graf, Evert or Navratilova and dominated the doubles tour during her peak as well.

9. Evonne Goolagong — Seven Grand Slams, 68 titles, 81% win

The Aussie is best remembered for her rivalry with Chris Evert, but she advanced to 18 Grand Slam finals and won seven. Despite making the finals four consecutive times at the U.S. Open, she was never able to prevail at the event.

8. Venus Williams — Seven Grand Slams, 43 titles, 80.5% win

If not for her sister, Venus would doubtlessly have another handful of Grand Slams. As it is, she's been sort of a one-trick pony: five of her seven Slams have come at Wimbledon and the other two were at the U.S. Open. That's not too bad of a trick to have.

7. Monica Seles — Nine Grand Slams, 53 titles, 83% win

Before the tragic stabbing that kept her out of the sport for two years, Seles was on her way to becoming one of the top players ever. Even with it, the Yugoslavian makes the list thanks to nine majors and her dethroning of Steffi Graf at No. 1 in the spring of 1991. She'd stay at No. 1 for 113 of the next 117 weeks as part of a stretch that saw her go 55-1 in Grand Slams.

6. Billie Jean King — 12 Grand Slams, 84 titles, 82.2% win

If we were ranking the most influential tennis players ever, King would be a clear No. 1 (and she'd be up there on a list of all athletes as well). Her pioneering efforts in gender equality and her win over Bobby Riggs in 1973's Battle of the Sexes often make people forget that she was a 12-time Slam winner.

5. Serena Williams — 13 Grand Slams, 37 titles, 80% win

The younger Williams sister may be closer to the top of this list when her career ends, but as of now she doesn't have the resume to compare with the four women above her on the list. The 13 Slams are impressive, but only winning 24 more titles in her career? This list values the majors above everything else, but in order to be considered among the all-time greats, Serena needed to prove her tennis prowess in places other than Melbourne, Paris, Wimbledon and Flushing. As L. Jon Wertheim wrote in SI last week, Serena at her peak may have been the greatest who ever stepped onto the court. But this exercise was to rank the greatest careers, not who had the most talent.

4. Margaret Court — 24 Grand Slams, 92 titles, 91% win (unofficial)

Though her career spanned both the amateur and Open eras, Court could have made this list based on her 1970 season alone. She became the second woman ever to win the Grand Slam, won 21 tournaments and posted a 104-6 record. Her record 24 Grand Slams are often mentioned with a qualifier — "she won 24 but the competition wasn't as good" or "11 of those majors came in Australia and nobody played there back then" — but those complaints reek of favoritism toward the modern era. Twenty-four is 24.

3. Chris Evert — 18 Grand Slams, 157 titles, 90% win

Chrissie's baseline game wouldn't work nearly as well in our current big-hitting era, but in her heyday, the "Ice Maiden" was the most consistent player in the Open Era. She made the semifinals of her first 34 Slams, played in the finals in 76 percent of the 303 tournaments she entered and has the highest win percentage in professional tennis history.

2. Steffi Graf — 22 Grand Slams, 107 titles, 88.7% win

In 1988 and 1989, Graf won 25 of 30 tournaments, seven of eight Grand Slams and an Olympic gold medal. She was No. 1 for a record 337 weeks and is the only player to ever win each Grand Slam four times. Detractors will say that her record is inflated because Monica Seles missed two years after being stabbed on the court, but that shouldn't be held against Graf any more than Court's lack of competition should be held against her. Plus, Steffi won 11 Grand Slams prior to the Seles incident and held a 6-4 record against her rival at the time.

1. Martina Navratilova — 18 Grand Slams, 167 titles, 86.8% win

Take your pick of greatest Martina stats: 1,442 wins, 167 titles, a 74-match win streak, playing in 23 consecutive singles finals, 18 singles titles at Grand Slams, 59 total titles at the Slams, nine victories at Wimbledon. Even as a 53-year-old breast-cancer survivor, Martina could probably hold her own on tour today.
 
Last edited:

Ripper014

Hall of Fame
The guy is an idiot... if you are going to put Martina's numbers ahead of Graf then you would have to acknowledge Evert's numbers as well... moving Graf to 3rd all-time.

I cannot comment on the top ten... but my top 3 would be Graf, Navratilova... barely over Evert for 3rd.

Graf has a Golden Grand Slam, more slams period, a better winning percentage... over a shorter but extensive playing career (17 years). Evert has similar numbers to Martina over 17 years and Navratilova... her career spanned 31 years according to wiki but 25 would be more accurate... I am not sure when she won her last singles tournament.
 

samboy01

Banned
The guy is an idiot... if you are going to put Martina's numbers ahead of Graf then you would have to acknowledge Evert's numbers as well... moving Graf to 3rd all-time.

I cannot comment on the top ten... but my top 3 would be Graf, Navratilova... barely over Evert for 3rd.

Graf has a Golden Grand Slam, more slams period, a better winning percentage... over a shorter but extensive playing career (17 years). Evert has similar numbers to Martina over 17 years and Navratilova... her career spanned 31 years according to wiki but 25 would be more accurate... I am not sure when she won her last singles tournament.

Navratilova beat prime Graf at age 37. That alone seals the deal. Navratilova is a legend.
 

davey25

Banned
Navratilova beat prime Graf at age 37. That alone seals the deal.

As usual poor attempt of logic on your behalf. First of all Navratilova beat Graf once at age 36. King at ages 35 and 36 on broken down knees hammered reigning Wimbledon Champion Navratilova now in her 20s twice 6-1, 6-2 and 6-1, 6-3 on her favorite surfaces of grass and indoors. In fact King despite first playing Martina when King was already 34 and Navratilova 21 managed a 6-9 head to head with Martina. If King had retired after Houston in 1980 at age 36 she would have held a 6-5 winning head to head with Martina with all matches King aged 34-36 and Martina aged 21-23. And Navratilova from ages 34-36 beat prime Seles of 91-93 not once, but FOUR times. And you still want people to believe Seles was the GOAT that was, LOL!
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
The name needs to be changed from all time to open era greatest, if that is done then the list is solid, although I would dispute the placements of numbers 8-10 on that list, Henin would be 8, Venus 9 and Goolagong 10. But if you are making an all time great list, as this is called, and don't include Helen Wills Moody or Suzanne Lenglen then it really isn't a great list at all, and if your going to include Henin, Venus and Goolagong than consideration would need to be given to Connolly, who in her short career in my opinion arguably trumps them based on her Grand slam acheivements in such a short time.
 

raiden031

Legend
I think the author made a valid point about Serena. It is easier to only play at peak level in the slams and slack in the other tourneys like Serena and even Fed do these days. If someone can consistently play top level all year long, then that says alot more about the player then just how they do at the slams.
 

davey25

Banned
I have a hard time determining #1. I think a good argumnent could be made for any of Graf, Evert, Navratilova, or Court. To be honest though if it is purely singles I would put both Graf and contrary to most EVERT over Court or Navratilova. If ample consideration is given the doubles then I put Court and Navratilova as the top 2 overall followed by Evert and Graf.

I have said it before but Navratilova is overrated somewhat compared to Evert as a singles player. Maybe it is the tireless "I am the GOAT" campaigning she engages in but her career seems to be cherry picked more than nearly everyone else with all these little rules that suit her. Evert is put down as far inferior to Navratilova since she was dominated by Martina at her peak from 83-86. Well Navratilova one of the latest blooming players ever and was similarily dominated by Graf from 87-89, yet was only 1-2 years older on average than former teen phenom Evert had been in the years I mentioned. Of course she gets a free pass for that since she was supposably "old", yeah Martina who was a Clijsters or Davenport level great until age 25 at 30 was too old, while former teen phenom Evert was still a young kid at 30 and 31, what a joke. The fact that Evert had been the better player for years until 1982, and that even older than the late blooming Martina she was scoring wins over her too in the late 80s when near retirement is also ignored. Navratilova is also praised for her longevity despite that she only started her prime in 1982 but was supposably well past it already only 5 years later. Navratilova also won all her slams outside 3 Wimbledons in less than a 6 year stretch, that is not great longevity at all compared to Court, Evert, Graf, Wills, Lenglen, King or Serena. Navratilova's rather pedestrian clay court record (again relative to other GOAT candidates) is also passed off, while the fact Evert managed 10 Wimbledon finals on her worst surface is overlooked. When you compare Martina to some of the other greats but especialy the other 3 I mentioned in dominance, versatility, consistency, longevity, and strength of competition the only ones she wins out on is sheer dominance, versatility in her doubles record but certainly not in her surface balance, and longevity of very good play but certainly not of great or near peak play. And lastly Navratilova the latest bloomer in history is actually given extra praise for posting an occasional win over Graf and Seles into her 30s, when Navratilova in her 20s has lost to MANY women in their 30s including posting a nearly tied head to head with King (9-6) when every match was when King was 34 or older and Navratilova in her 20s.



Anyway my post World War 11 lists (it is so hard to compare Wills and Lenglen accurately but if forced they would certainly be top 8 atleast):

Singles only:

1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Court
4. Navratilova
-----big gap----
5. Connolly
6. King
7. Serena (certain to move up in future IMO)
-----big gap-----
8. Seles
9. Venus
10. Bueno



Singles and Doubles combined:

1. Court
2. Navratilova
3. Graf
4. Evert
5. King
6. Serena
7. Connolly
8. Venus
9. Brough
10. Osborne Du Pont
 
Last edited:

egn

Hall of Fame
I have said it before but Navratilova is overrated somewhat compared to Evert as a singles player.

Yea because I mean she only has the leading head to head, owned her in slam finals and the same amount of majors with more years at #1 and better peak seasons. It's completely stupid to say she is better than Evert. So overrated there...yea really.

I mean your point has some validity, but Evert was not at the top of the game more than Martina had one more top year than Chris. Martina was also top 10 for 20 years straight? I mean she made a slam semi from 75 to 94 she's not nearly as bad as everyone trys to make it out to be, there was definitely longevity. When Martina was playing her best it was absolutely amazing and 5 years of complete dominance is impressive as nobody has a better 5 year record than 431-14..Thats a .968 win percentage..over a 5 year period..She had 7 season of 90 percent match win and an 8th season with 89.9...and won 10 titles for 9 years straight..few women can even claim 5 years of 10 titles. Martina is a lot better honestly than people say with all the downplay of her because of some "lack of consistency". It's kind of like how was she supposed to lose only 2 matches a year every year...who the hell does that? She bloomed late..okay?? She still was absolutely better than almost anyone in that time period, age should not be a factor of being good.

If you say Martina was worse than Chrissie it's just shocking. I mean watching them play Chrissie never could dominate the way Martina dominated her on her BEST SURFACE. 1984 French Open is proof.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
:):):)
6 of the top 8 players are American.
Navi ahead of Graf, Evert ahead of Evert.

Yeah, pretty "fair" ...

What's funny is Connolly is missing from that list so tack another American on..What it's America's fault that 7 of the greatest women tennis' players all time were American oh yea and Wills Moody....so you have 9 great American women and well really only 7 born great American women with Navra and Seles becoming American citizens. However I don't see how you call this unfair? Argue Venus out but then you add more past greats you get Connolly and Wills Moody who are easily top 8 slip in Lengln and effectively you have Evert, Navra, Connolly, Wills Moody, King, Serena and Seles fighting for top 10 spaces with really only Court, Graf and Lengln being the only 3 who hold claim against these 7..so your top 10 would wind up most likely having 7 AMERICAN WOMEN. So frankly someone having 6 of their top 8 be american is not a huge deal when it comes to womens tennis. Unless you can name me a top 10 without at least 6 american women in it..

People rate Navi over Graf because of the stabbing it's not going to change. Everyone has their own opinion.
 

Gen

Banned
1. Court with 62 slam titles (including a record 24 singles titles, 19 women's doubles titles, and a record 19 mixed doubles titles, and the highest wining percentage

2. Graf

3. Evert-Navratilova
 

davey25

Banned
Yea because I mean she only has the leading head to head,

43-37, hardly the blowout you would imagine when you hear people compare the two often. And the head to head is skewed somewhat by all the matched they played on Martina's favorite surfaces- grass and indoors. Martina actually ducked clay (and later rebound ace) during parts of her career she wasnt dominant as well, something Evert, Court, and Graf never did on any surface.

owned her in slam finals

In part since Chris was a top 2 player in the World for 13 years without exception so she could only meet the best in the final. Many times they were meeting in the semis during Martina's non peak years since she wasnt even the 2nd best player in the World much of those. Chris from 1974 to 1986 could only meet the #1 or #2 (depending if she herself was #1) in the final. Chris did beat Martina in semis of Wimbledon twice, U.S Open in 75, Australian Open in 88 when she was even older and much closer to retirement than Martina.

and the same amount of majors

Chris was actually the one by far hurt the most by the status of the French and Aussie Opens back then. She missed out on 3 virtually certain French Opens, probably the 72 French too had she played. As for the Australian Evert would have been a real threat for the title every year from 75-1980, while Navratilova only in 78 and 79 of the years she missed. In a certain sense Chris really should have about 24 slams and Martina 19 or 20.


It's completely stupid to say she is better than Evert. So overrated there...yea really.

I think Martina is being overrated since people talk about her like she is head and shoulders better than Chris in singles only because she dominated Chris during her peak years (when Chris was arguably slightly past her prime anyway). And I think that is stupid and overlooks the big picture of their careers which in no way is so clear cut in Martina's favor when looking at just singles. Maybe Martina is better as a singles player but certainly not by the undisputed margin it is made out to be.

I mean your point has some validity, but Evert was not at the top of the game more than Martina had one more top year than Chris.

Are you going by the official rankings. Regardless of the rankings Evert was clearly considered the #1 from 74-78, Martina probably in 79, Evert again in both 1980 and 81, and Martina clearly from 82-86. I would say Evert was on top one more year. Are there are any of those years you dispute? And if you want to go by the official rankings then you must think Connors was the true #1 every year from 1974 to 1978 but actually not in 1982.


Martina was also top 10 for 20 years straight?

Top 10 years are nothing noteable for a WTA great other than in very old age (and yes Martina mantaining a quite high standard in old age was impressive). Chris Evert was clearly a top 2 player for 13 straight years, and a top 3 player for about 15 years. Martina was for 8 straight years, and a top 3 player for 12 years (she dropped down to be only the #3 in the World for both years and briefly as low as #5 during 1980 and 1981 after reaching #1 before that).


I mean she made a slam semi from 75 to 94 she's not nearly as bad as everyone trys to make it out to be, there was definitely longevity. When Martina was playing her best it was absolutely amazing and 5 years of complete dominance is impressive as nobody has a better 5 year record than 431-14..Thats a .968 win percentage..over a 5 year period..She had 7 season of 90 percent match win and an 8th season with 89.9...and won 10 titles for 9 years straight..few women can even claim 5 years of 10 titles. Martina is a lot better honestly than people say with all the downplay of her because of some "lack of consistency". It's kind of like how was she supposed to lose only 2 matches a year every year...who the hell does that? She bloomed late..okay?? She still was absolutely better than almost anyone in that time period, age should not be a factor of being good.

Again we are comparing to other GOAT candidates. Of course compared to most Martina had great consistency and longevity. Nobody said Martina had bad consistency other than in comparision to the rest of the very best. Compared to Evert, Court, and Graf, she had less of both than all of them, and Evert had the most in both these categories of all of them. Nobody denies Martina at her peak was the most dominant, other than possibly Graf, and clearly more dominant than Evert ever was.


If you say Martina was worse than Chrissie it's just shocking.

Well you have said many times you consider Chris greater than Graf and to most people that is shocking too. If you are free to put Chris over Graf when almost nobody else does, then I am free to rate Chris's career as a singles player over Martina's despite your finding it shocking too.


I mean watching them play Chrissie never could dominate the way Martina dominated her on her BEST SURFACE. 1984 French Open is proof.

OK so if Nadal destroys Federer in a Wimbledon or U.S Open final in the next couple years (which will probably happen if they play in one anytime in the future) is he automaticaly better than Federer already too. And if you are going to say he will be 29 (or older) when/if that happens, guess how old Chris was in 1984 as well.
 
Last edited:

davey25

Banned
Venus above Henin. LOL. I wish someone would make a list without Williams sisters fetish.

Maybe Henin should have won Wimbledon once and posted better than a 2-7 head to head vs Venus if she wanted to be ranked higher than her.
 

vortex1

Banned
Maybe Henin should have won Wimbledon once and posted better than a 2-7 head to head vs Venus if she wanted to be ranked higher than her.

Maybe Venus shouldn't have totally failed on clay posted a win at AO and actually had more than a few days ranked #1. She failed to dominate anything outside of Wimbledon, while Henin was top player in 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Edit: The fact that the idiot actually considered including Hingis in the list, tells me all I need to know about his bias.
 
Last edited:

davey25

Banned
Maybe Venus shouldn't have totally failed on clay posted a win at AO and actually had more than a few days ranked #1. She failed to dominate anything outside of Wimbledon, while Henin was top player in 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Edit: The fact that the idiot actually considered including Hingis in the list, tells me all I need to know about his bias.

Venus was considered the defacto top player in both 2000 and 2001 regardless of the rankings. The only year Henin was clearly #1 was 2007. 2006 is disputed by many vs Mauresmo who won 2 majors to Henin's 1 and beat Henin in the final to win both, and 2003 has an asterix as it was only due to Serena's injury after Wimbledon.

Venus has actually won quite a few tier 1 and tier 2 titles on clay. Overall it could be argued in her good years she was better on clay than Henin on grass during her good years.
 
S

srinrajesh

Guest
I think it's pretty fair. It gives a ranking based on actual accomplishements BUT does mention the Seles stabbing in both Monica's and Steffi's paragraphs. It also saids that without that stabbing, Seles would have been contender for GOAT, but even with being stopped at her prime she still ranks pretty high. But again 6-4 included 3 wins in 1989 against a baby Seles, but that's ok he's forgiven. I agree about Navratilova, that was never in doubt!


Ranking the top-10 women's tennis players of all time

By Chris Chase

On Tuesday, we took issue with Sports Illustrated's proclamation that Serena Williams was the greatest female tennis player of all time. Most of the comments and emails we received on the subject asked the same question — "if Serena's not the best, then who is?"

As a result, Busted Racquet decided to make a list of the top-10 women's tennis players of all time. Feel free to debate, argue, praise or plain tell us we're wrong in the comments, on Twitter or via email at bustedracquet@yahoo.com. We'll post the best replies on Friday.

10. Justine Henin — Seven Grand Slams, 43 titles, 82% win percentage

It was a tough call between Henin and Martina Hingis, but the Belgian gets the No. 10 spot by virtue of her seven Slams (compared to five for Hingis). Not to take anything away from the Swiss star, though. She had more weeks at No. 1 than anyone not named Graf, Evert or Navratilova and dominated the doubles tour during her peak as well.

9. Evonne Goolagong — Seven Grand Slams, 68 titles, 81% win

The Aussie is best remembered for her rivalry with Chris Evert, but she advanced to 18 Grand Slam finals and won seven. Despite making the finals four consecutive times at the U.S. Open, she was never able to prevail at the event.

8. Venus Williams — Seven Grand Slams, 43 titles, 80.5% win

If not for her sister, Venus would doubtlessly have another handful of Grand Slams. As it is, she's been sort of a one-trick pony: five of her seven Slams have come at Wimbledon and the other two were at the U.S. Open. That's not too bad of a trick to have.

7. Monica Seles — Nine Grand Slams, 53 titles, 83% win

Before the tragic stabbing that kept her out of the sport for two years, Seles was on her way to becoming one of the top players ever. Even with it, the Yugoslavian makes the list thanks to nine majors and her dethroning of Steffi Graf at No. 1 in the spring of 1991. She'd stay at No. 1 for 113 of the next 117 weeks as part of a stretch that saw her go 55-1 in Grand Slams.

6. Billie Jean King — 12 Grand Slams, 84 titles, 82.2% win

If we were ranking the most influential tennis players ever, King would be a clear No. 1 (and she'd be up there on a list of all athletes as well). Her pioneering efforts in gender equality and her win over Bobby Riggs in 1973's Battle of the Sexes often make people forget that she was a 12-time Slam winner.

5. Serena Williams — 13 Grand Slams, 37 titles, 80% win

The younger Williams sister may be closer to the top of this list when her career ends, but as of now she doesn't have the resume to compare with the four women above her on the list. The 13 Slams are impressive, but only winning 24 more titles in her career? This list values the majors above everything else, but in order to be considered among the all-time greats, Serena needed to prove her tennis prowess in places other than Melbourne, Paris, Wimbledon and Flushing. As L. Jon Wertheim wrote in SI last week, Serena at her peak may have been the greatest who ever stepped onto the court. But this exercise was to rank the greatest careers, not who had the most talent.

4. Margaret Court — 24 Grand Slams, 92 titles, 91% win (unofficial)

Though her career spanned both the amateur and Open eras, Court could have made this list based on her 1970 season alone. She became the second woman ever to win the Grand Slam, won 21 tournaments and posted a 104-6 record. Her record 24 Grand Slams are often mentioned with a qualifier — "she won 24 but the competition wasn't as good" or "11 of those majors came in Australia and nobody played there back then" — but those complaints reek of favoritism toward the modern era. Twenty-four is 24.

3. Chris Evert — 18 Grand Slams, 157 titles, 90% win

Chrissie's baseline game wouldn't work nearly as well in our current big-hitting era, but in her heyday, the "Ice Maiden" was the most consistent player in the Open Era. She made the semifinals of her first 34 Slams, played in the finals in 76 percent of the 303 tournaments she entered and has the highest win percentage in professional tennis history.

2. Steffi Graf — 22 Grand Slams, 107 titles, 88.7% win

In 1988 and 1989, Graf won 25 of 30 tournaments, seven of eight Grand Slams and an Olympic gold medal. She was No. 1 for a record 337 weeks and is the only player to ever win each Grand Slam four times. Detractors will say that her record is inflated because Monica Seles missed two years after being stabbed on the court, but that shouldn't be held against Graf any more than Court's lack of competition should be held against her. Plus, Steffi won 11 Grand Slams prior to the Seles incident and held a 6-4 record against her rival at the time.

1. Martina Navratilova — 18 Grand Slams, 167 titles, 86.8% win

Take your pick of greatest Martina stats: 1,442 wins, 167 titles, a 74-match win streak, playing in 23 consecutive singles finals, 18 singles titles at Grand Slams, 59 total titles at the Slams, nine victories at Wimbledon. Even as a 53-year-old breast-cancer survivor, Martina could probably hold her own on tour today.

Pretty fair list... Agree with most of the picks.. Would probably rate Henin higher because of better all round performance than Venus who has 5 at Wimby alone (good tournament to win 5 though)
Also she was No.1 for more time than Venus...
Venus spent lesser weeks at No.1 than Ivanovic, Jankovic, Safina, Arantxa and Clijsters
 

vortex1

Banned
Venus was considered the defacto top player in both 2000 and 2001 regardless of the rankings. The only year Henin was clearly #1 was 2007. 2006 is disputed by many vs Mauresmo who won 2 majors to Henin's 1 and beat Henin in the final to win both, and 2003 has an asterix as it was only due to Serena's injury after Wimbledon.

Venus has actually won quite a few tier 1 and tier 2 titles on clay. Overall it could be argued in her good years she was better on clay than Henin on grass during her good years.

It just doesn't work that way. If you are not good enough to be #1, then you're not good enough. The fact that Venus failed to hold #1 ranking means she wasn't consistent with her results. The whole "defacto top player" crap is just an attempt to make her better than she really was.

Henin was clearly top player in 2006. 1 slam, 3 finals, year end #1. No contest.

By the way, if Henin's 2003 has an asterisk next to it, then so does Serena's 2008 and 2009. She beat absolute clowns in finals like Safina and her aging and useless sister... but wait she still failed to win RG during that time when it was wide open (outchoking mental giants like Kuznetsova), proving that 2002 was a fluke, she also got thrashed by Clijsters in USO, proving she was dominating weak field during the whole time.
 

davey25

Banned
If being #1 more years makes you better then Davenport is the best player of this generation over Venus, Serena, and Henin. 4 year end #1s after all and she somewhat deserved all 4.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
It just doesn't work that way. If you are not good enough to be #1, then you're not good enough. The fact that Venus failed to hold #1 ranking means she wasn't consistent with her results. The whole "defacto top player" crap is just an attempt to make her better than she really was.

Henin was clearly top player in 2006. 1 slam, 3 finals, year end #1. No contest.

By the way, if Henin's 2003 has an asterisk next to it, then so does Serena's 2008 and 2009. She beat absolute clowns in finals like Safina and her aging and useless sister... but wait she still failed to win RG during that time when it was wide open (outchoking mental giants like Kuznetsova), proving that 2002 was a fluke, she also got thrashed by Clijsters in USO, proving she was dominating weak field during the whole time.

Translation: history does not consider Henin the best or even 2nd best of her generation, so vortex1 has to spin reality (by trashing the great results of others) in order to pump Henin's sinking career--one without a sinlge Wimbledon title. Poor, little Henin...poor little vortex1.
 

davey25

Banned
Translation: history does not consider Henin the best or even 2nd best of her generation, so vortex1 has to spin reality (by trashing the great results of others) in order to pump Henin's sinking career--one without a sinlge Wimbledon title. Poor, little Henin...poor little vortex1.

Just like the embarassing rants after Henin lost to that so called "fat Belgian" at Wimbledon that vortex gauranteed she would trounce.
 

davey25

Banned
I think an interesting question is who is 4th greatest of this the last 2 generations or so:

Hingis- 5 slams, youngest ever #1, lots of achievements, yet career fizzled out in somewhat embarassing fashion and she was retired at 21 only to make a brief and only minimally successful comeback.

Davenport- 3 slams but a huge # of tournament wins and time spent at #1 which makes it surprising she won only 3 slams. At her best she appeared overall on par or superior to Hingis.

Clijsters- 2 slams but still active. A strong and consistent career with many near misses of more big wins.

Capriati- 3 slams in an up and down and perplexing career.

Sharapova- 3 slams and consistent strong results over a 4 year span. Looks like her carer will be another that fizzles out quite young though, even if she actually plays alot longer than Hingis.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Just like the embarassing rants after Henin lost to that so called "fat Belgian" at Wimbledon that vortex gauranteed she would trounce.

Really! I wonder how vortex will explain that one away? After all, Clijsters in not the "real" Belgian tennis champ, and--according to little vortex1--is inferior to the allegedly mighty Henin. Hmm...both returned to tennis, but only the "inferior/fat" Clijsters has a slam victory, while the other has a bust of a year at the slams. Hmm....
 

vortex1

Banned
Translation: history does not consider Henin the best or even 2nd best of her generation, so vortex1 has to spin reality (by trashing the great results of others) in order to pump Henin's sinking career--one without a sinlge Wimbledon title. Poor, little Henin...poor little vortex1.

History? More like an opinion of some ******.
 

vortex1

Banned
If being #1 more years makes you better then Davenport is the best player of this generation over Venus, Serena, and Henin. 4 year end #1s after all and she somewhat deserved all 4.

Davenport didn't win enough majors or make enough finals. Your bias is showing once again.
 

vortex1

Banned
Translation: baby is bitter again, and will remain bitter as Henin is not the best or 2nd best of her generation and is incapable of capturing the Wimbledon title. Here's another box of tissue, baby!

Good thing Henin is second best right now - it was Venus who was incapable of holding rank #1 for more than a week and mugged it up in RG. Only an idiot would consider her second best, she's below Hingis IMO.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Good thing Henin is second best right now - it was Venus who was incapable of holding rank #1 for more than a week and mugged it up in RG. Only an idiot would consider her second best, she's below Hingis IMO.

..said the fan of a player who is so inept on grass that it is a great possibility she will never win the Wimbledon title...and she's aging. Aw, shucks, little vortex1, I thought Henin's Super-Powerful-Ultra-Mystery-Ingredient "Win Wimbledon" formula was a guarantee? That's what all of you Henin cult members promised, but....yeah.

A bust.
 

davey25

Banned
Davenport didn't win enough majors or make enough finals. Your bias is showing once again.

So if it is about majors prestige Serena >>>> Henin and Venus > Henin since 5 Wimbledons and 0 French Opens > 4 French Opens and 0 Wimbledons (and 7 = 7) . If it is about most time at #1 then Davenport is the best player of the generation as absurd as that sounds, but those are your rules; and Hingis is now also better than Henin. Make up your mind. :)
 

tennis_guru

Banned
The list is very fair indeed. The author is in fact correct that Graf's numbers are inflated due to Seles. Maybe even put Graf #3 since Evert is very close to Martina.
 

Camilio Pascual

Hall of Fame
Terrible list.
He should have retitled it as being in the Open Era.
No Mo Connolly, who easily is above Goolagong and Henin. And no player from before 1950.
Ridiculous.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
I think an interesting question is who is 4th greatest of this the last 2 generations or so:

Hingis- 5 slams, youngest ever #1, lots of achievements, yet career fizzled out in somewhat embarassing fashion and she was retired at 21 only to make a brief and only minimally successful comeback.

.

I think Hingis is third best player of the 90's. Come to think of it, she's not even 7th or 8th best of the 2000s! There's a long list of players ahead of her in the past 10 years.

mmm, whom should be the 10 best players of the noughties?

Serena (indisputable)

Venus (I will personally go with Venus over Henin now)

Henin

(gets tricky!)

... and?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grass_for_cows

Semi-Pro
I think Hingis is third best player of the 90's. Come to think of it, she's not even 7th or 8th best of the 2000s! There's a long list of players ahead of her in the past 10 years.

mmm, whom should be the 10 best players of the noughties?

Serena (indisputable)

Venus (I will personally go with Venus over Henin now)

Henin

(gets tricky!)

... and?

Hingis has a couple majors less than Venus or Henin but she showed greater dominance during her "prime." She also has the doubles results Henin doesn't have. I doubt there's 7 players from 2000s who are better than Hingis. I think there is definitely a case for putting her above either Venus or Henin, just as there is a case for putting her below them.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
43-37, hardly the blowout you would imagine when you hear people compare the two often. And the head to head is skewed somewhat by all the matched they played on Martina's favorite surfaces- grass and indoors. Martina actually ducked clay (and later rebound ace) during parts of her career she wasnt dominant as well, something Evert, Court, and Graf never did on any surface.

They met 14 times on clay and 15 on grass, not a huge difference. Sure they met 37 times on indoor but that was the surface of the decade, it was like hardcourts now. Evert isn't bad on indoors either but considering Navra led on regular Hard, Grass and Indoors by sizeable margins and the only surface Evert led on was clay...there is a problem.

In part since Chris was a top 2 player in the World for 13 years without exception so she could only meet the best in the final. Many times they were meeting in the semis during Martina's non peak years since she wasnt even the 2nd best player in the World much of those. Chris from 1974 to 1986 could only meet the #1 or #2 (depending if she herself was #1) in the final. Chris did beat Martina in semis of Wimbledon twice, U.S Open in 75, Australian Open in 88 when she was even older and much closer to retirement than Martina.

True Martina was only top 2 for 10 seasons (though being 3 is not something to cry about) and even then their record against each other in majors still favors Martina 14-8. Martina still out performed her.


Chris was actually the one by far hurt the most by the status of the French and Aussie Opens back then. She missed out on 3 virtually certain French Opens, probably the 72 French too had she played. As for the Australian Evert would have been a real threat for the title every year from 75-1980, while Navratilova only in 78 and 79 of the years she missed. In a certain sense Chris really should have about 24 slams and Martina 19 or 20.

I'll give you the French status but still you don't know if she was hurt by the Australian Status as Goolagong and Navratilova could have beaten her on grass in those years. I will agree though she should have most likely 2 more French Opens. I don't know if Chris would have 24. I'd say 21 is more realistic she wasn't going to dominate the Aussie and she could have lost a French Open. However again this is should have and could have's and we can argue these all day.

I think Martina is being overrated since people talk about her like she is head and shoulders better than Chris in singles only because she dominated Chris during her peak years (when Chris was arguably slightly past her prime anyway). And I think that is stupid and overlooks the big picture of their careers which in no way is so clear cut in Martina's favor when looking at just singles. Maybe Martina is better as a singles player but certainly not by the undisputed margin it is made out to be.

Oh I don't think it is a huge margin I think she is just slightly ahead of her as their head to head suggest. Neither are leaps and bounds ahead.


Are you going by the official rankings. Regardless of the rankings Evert was clearly considered the #1 from 74-78, Martina probably in 79, Evert again in both 1980 and 81, and Martina clearly from 82-86. I would say Evert was on top one more year. Are there are any of those years you dispute? And if you want to go by the official rankings then you must think Connors was the true #1 every year from 1974 to 1978 but actually not in 1982.

I was going by the offical rankings but what they have for both is as follows
Evert 1 from 74-77
Martina 1 from 78-79
Evert 1 from 80-81
Martina 1 from 82-86

The year up for debate is 78..but I think Martina gets the edge you think vice versa but its not a huge dispute. Martina won more titles, Evert had a better winning percentage it's a toss up.



Top 10 years are nothing noteable for a WTA great other than in very old age (and yes Martina mantaining a quite high standard in old age was impressive). Chris Evert was clearly a top 2 player for 13 straight years, and a top 3 player for about 15 years. Martina was for 8 straight years, and a top 3 player for 12 years (she dropped down to be only the #3 in the World for both years and briefly as low as #5 during 1980 and 1981 after reaching #1 before that)
.

Evert did slip out of the top 2 if I recall correctly at one point when Tracy Austin was around in the early 80s.


Again we are comparing to other GOAT candidates. Of course compared to most Martina had great consistency and longevity. Nobody said Martina had bad consistency other than in comparision to the rest of the very best. Compared to Evert, Court, and Graf, she had less of both than all of them, and Evert had the most in both these categories of all of them. Nobody denies Martina at her peak was the most dominant, other than possibly Graf, and clearly more dominant than Evert ever was.

Agreed.

Well you have said many times you consider Chris greater than Graf and to most people that is shocking too. If you are free to put Chris over Graf when almost nobody else does, then I am free to rate Chris's career as a singles player over Martina's despite your finding it shocking too.

Agreed as well. Still find it a bit odd but agreed.

OK so if Nadal destroys Federer in a Wimbledon or U.S Open final in the next couple years (which will probably happen if they play in one anytime in the future) is he automaticaly better than Federer already too. And if you are going to say he will be 29 (or older) when/if that happens, guess how old Chris was in 1984 as well.

Well the age difference between Chris and Martina is only 2 years but anyway not the point.

Well if Nadal manages to do this and "destroys him" I'm talking 6-3, 6-1, 6-3 at the US Open say this year or next year then the claim will defeinitely be there as long as Nadal can get close to Fed's overall accomplishments. Hell nobody is running around claiming Tracy Austin to be better than Evert because she never came anywhere close. However if Nadal beats Fed at the US and another wimbledon and wins say 13 or 14 majors with a spread of like 6 French, 3 Aussie, 4 wimbledon and 1 US or something just similar to that then hey it might be hard to say Fed is still better than his fellow 14 time grand slam winner who dominated him in h2h. Who is leading on all but 1 surface such as indoor.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
Hingis has a couple majors less than Venus or Henin but she showed greater dominance during her "prime." She also has the doubles results Henin doesn't have. I doubt there's 7 players from 2000s who are better than Hingis. I think there is definitely a case for putting her above either Venus or Henin, just as there is a case for putting her below them.

I really like Hingis, trouble is, she was on off on then off again in the 2000s. 2000 YEC was the last big event she won, then she wasn't relevant anymore. In the past decade, Jankovic, Dementieva, Safina .... even somebody like Myskina accomplished much more than Hingis.
 

davey25

Banned
I'll give you the French status but still you don't know if she was hurt by the Australian Status as Goolagong and Navratilova could have beaten her on grass in those years. I will agree though she should have most likely 2 more French Opens. I don't know if Chris would have 24. I'd say 21 is more realistic she wasn't going to dominate the Aussie and she could have lost a French Open. However again this is should have and could have's and we can argue these all day.

Just 2 more French Opens!? Seriously Chris didnt lose even a single match on clay from late 1973 until until 1979. Who the heck was going to beat her at the French any of the years from 1976-1978 even if everyone played. That is even if we dont consider the 1972 French which she almost certainly would have won too with Court and Richey out, and Goolagong getting trouced by King in the final, as King was barely winning games from Chris on clay from when Chris was a kid new on the scene. So atleast 3 more French Opens.

As for the Australian I agree she would not have "dominated" the Australian. However from 1975 to 1980 I dont see why she couldnt have won atleast 2 out of the 6, possibly more. Martina was only a threat to win there starting in 1978. Her performances at Wimbledon in 1975, 1976, and 1977, prove she clearly was not good enough to win a slam yet, even on her favorite surface (fast Wimbledon grass). Goolagong would have been her main threat from 75-77 and Navratilova her main threat in 78 and 79. Mandlikova won in 1980 when an out of shape slumping Martina lost in the semis of the depleted event. Guess add an aging King in, especialy in 75, and outside threads like Wade.

Sorry but I dont see how she wouldnt have reached atleast 23 slams, possibly more.

Martina would have been lucky to win 20 if she won the Australian in both 78 and 79 (by no means a certainty).
 

davey25

Banned
Who else is supposed to be the second-best if not Henin??

You just like building Henin up since it makes Graf look better. After all you know Graf would probably double bagel a talentless clown like Henin on all surfaces if they played in their mutual primes so by building Henin up to something she isnt (the best player of this era) it makes it look even better for Graf.
 

Joe Pike

Banned
You just like building Henin up since it makes Graf look better. After all you know Graf would probably double bagel a talentless clown like Henin on all surfaces if they played in their mutual primes so by building Henin up to something she isnt (the best player of this era) it makes it look even better for Graf.


Graf would struggle a lot more against Henin than against Venus.

Hey, even an over-the-hill Graf (1999 was not among Graf's 10 best years ever) decisively beat peak Venus in the 1999 Wimbledon quarters (1999 was on of Venus's four or five best years ever).
 

davey25

Banned
Graf would struggle a lot more against Henin than against Venus.

Hey, even an over-the-hill Graf (1999 was not among Graf's 10 best years ever) decisively beat peak Venus in the 1999 Wimbledon quarters (1999 was on of Venus's four or five best years ever).

Henin would have nothing to hurt Graf with at all. She doesnt do anything as well as Graf. Venus at her best could atleast outserve Graf (off the 1st serve), possibly outvolley Graf, and match power and speed with her.

Henin doesnt have the abilities to hang with any of the best players outside clay so why do you think she wouldnt get destroyed thoroughly by Graf who you have let everyone know you think is the GOAT x3. Look at Henin's records:

vs Serena outside of clay: 2-7, 1-6 on hard courts
vs Venus: 2-7 (including clay)
vs a nearly retired/washed up Seles: 3-4 (lost their first 4 matches)

Heck Henin even has a losing head to head with Clijsters and a nearly tied head to head with Mauresmo. She is the most overrated player on TW other than Seles. A prime Graf would roll over Henin.
 

dannythomas

Professional
You just like building Henin up since it makes Graf look better. After all you know Graf would probably double bagel a talentless clown like Henin on all surfaces if they played in their mutual primes so by building Henin up to something she isnt (the best player of this era) it makes it look even better for Graf.

You can point out Justine's shortcomings , a serve that can break down for instance. But I can never accept she is talentless. She is one of the most talented players ever to play the game. Whether she has made the most of that talent outside of RG is another question.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Just 2 more French Opens!? Seriously Chris didnt lose even a single match on clay from late 1973 until until 1979. Who the heck was going to beat her at the French any of the years from 1976-1978 even if everyone played. That is even if we dont consider the 1972 French which she almost certainly would have won too with Court and Richey out, and Goolagong getting trouced by King in the final, as King was barely winning games from Chris on clay from when Chris was a kid new on the scene. So atleast 3 more French Opens.

I don't think she would get 72...and I said 2 because anything could happen though she most likely would have gotten 3. I don't think Chris was mature enough to have won 72. Though 3 still seems like a fair number as well.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Henin would have nothing to hurt Graf with at all. She doesnt do anything as well as Graf. Venus at her best could atleast outserve Graf (off the 1st serve), possibly outvolley Graf, and match power and speed with her.

LMAO ! henin's BH is light years better than graf's ... Even a casual observer of the WTA like me can see that
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
You just like building Henin up since it makes Graf look better. After all you know Graf would probably double bagel a talentless clown like Henin on all surfaces if they played in their mutual primes so by building Henin up to something she isnt (the best player of this era) it makes it look even better for Graf.

a talentless clown who with her height of 5' 6" can generate power close to that of the more powerful and taller william sisters, how talentless must she be ; how talentless must she be if she can win 7 slams ? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Top