Divide the womens Open Era greats into tiers

[martinezownsclay]

Not a full ranking list, but a tier list. What tiers would you put the Open Era female greats into. Here would be mine.

Tier 1 (chronological order, not ranking order)-. Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Serena
Tier 1.5 (her own tier)- King
Tier 2 (chronological order again)- Seles, Henin, Venus
Tier 3- Goolagong, Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, Sharapova
Tier 4- Wade, Austin, Mandlikova, Sabatini (controversial but someone listed some great reasons to put her here), Sanchez Vicario (she could well be tier 3 but I choose against it, even if her and Sabatini in the same tier might seem strange), Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo, Azarenka, Kerber, Barty, Halep, Osaka, Swiatek
Tier 5- Novotna, Martinez, Kuznetsova, Wozniacki, Kvitova, Muguruza

Some explanations on certain people.

Some might argue King should be Tier 1 but I disagree. With only 12 singles slams, a 10-22 head to head with Court, and clearly beneath Court (by a good margin) as the best player of her era, she is not in the same tier as the top 5 women of the Open Era.

The reason I have Davenport in Tier 3 with only 3 slams is her 55 singles titles and having 4 Year End #1s, even if 1 of those (2001) is totally bogus.

The reason I have Pierce in Tier 4 with only 2 slams and no time at #1 is her 6 slam finals and her incredible 6-0 career slam semi final record. The reason I have Halep with only 2 slams is her time at #1.

The reason I have Sabatini in Tier 5 great at all is her 18 slam semis, and all her Premier titles in her career. Plus having the bad luck of Graf, Seles, Navratilova in her way for years, and by the time the field was getting weaker she was declining. The reason I have Novotna is mainly for her doubles career in conjuction with her singles career, not her singles career alone. I don't have Conchita Martinez as she has neither of those points going for her and isn't as good a player as they are anyway. I thought of including Stosur for her doubles career in conjuction with her singles career, but it is probably too much a stretch in her case. I thought of including Na Li, but decided her career was not enough, even with 2 slams (Kuznetsova has similar slam win and final stats, but was a top player a lot longer, even though neither reached #1). I included Kvitova since Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam, even today, plus being the real #1 of the year 2011.

I am sure I forgot some players by accident so feel free to fill those in are the ones who you feel I have in the wrong tier.

Edit- already made some changes after talking to some people.

 

[anarosevoli]

I agree with almost everything. But despite low number of overall titles (10) I would add Muguruza to Tier 5 where nobody except her has 2 slams, number one ranking and WTA finals. Only Azarenka has 2 slams and number one ranking (but Mug has channel slam, Azarenka only 2 AO).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Some might argue King should be Tier 1 but I disagree. With only 12 singles slams, a 10-22 head to head with Court, and clearly beneath Court (by a good margin) as the best player of her era, she is not in the same tier as the top 5 women of the Open Era.

King is tricky. Obviously she has no business being in Court’s tier, but having her in Venus/Henin tier is also tough. We can argue for Seles due to circumstances of her career, but 12vs7 is hard to argue. Maybe one could have a separate tier for King/Seles.

 

[martinezownsclay]

King is tricky. Obviously she has no business being in Court’s tier, but having her in Venus/Henin tier is also tough. We can argue for Seles due to circumstances of her career, but 12vs7 is hard to argue. Maybe one could have a separate tier for King/Seles.

Maybe. I wouldn't be comfortable having Seles in a whole other tier from Venus though when Seles is ahead by 2 slams, but has 0 Wimbledons to Venus's 5, is 1-9 head to head with Venus, and Venus having an excellent doubles career too. Maybe have a tier for King all by herself, LOL, as I don't think Seles belongs with her either particularly when we give consideration to doubles.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I agree with almost everything. But despite low number of overall titles (10) I would add Muguruza to Tier 5 where nobody except her has 2 slams, number one ranking and WTA finals. Only Azarenka has 2 slams and number one ranking (but Mug has channel slam, Azarenka only 2 AO).

I considered Muguruza but was on the fence due to her only having 10 titles and no real doubles. Do you know how many of her non slam titles are Premier though? Maybe I will add her.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Maybe. I wouldn't be comfortable having Seles in a whole other tier from Venus though when Seles is ahead by 2 slams, but has 0 Wimbledons to Venus's 5, is 1-9 head to head with Venus, and Venus having an excellent doubles career too. Maybe have a tier for King all by herself, LOL, as I don't think Seles belongs with her either particularly when we give consideration to doubles.

Well I was more adding Seles as it would look weird to me to have a whole tier for BJK on her own. However, after further consideration: while I had my fair share to argue with those people in the other thread trying to grant Seles 20 or even 30 slams (lol) I also cannot really buy into the other extreme and believe that in any possible scenario bar a career ending injury she ends up below 12 if it wasn’t for the stabbing. It is easy of course to dismiss every hypothetical and say that as unfair it was, we can only assess what actually happened, however, different to injuries which you can at least partly blame the player for in some cases, here something hapoened which was zero in Seles control and which was intentionally aimed at destroying her career so I am willing to grant her at least some hypothetical extra bonus.

The 1-9 H2H looks bad of course but they never played during Seles prime, not even close. Not sure how to factor in doubles, but Venus having a (borderline) GOAT candidate sister playing doubles with her is also an advantage.

 

[BTURNER]

I see nothing whatsoever to argue with about these tiers. I like where you put people, But I'd like to see their career w/loss stats ( pro tour or just in the slams) included so that if that number differs wildly from the rest of the 'tier', its at least a flag. I may even do that project myself today!

 

[Kralingen]

Hingis in Tier 2.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Just out of curiosity, I cross-checked your choices against Sackmann's Tennis 128. Things to remember are that (a) he based his list on results prior to the 2022 season, and (b) he more or less ignored doubles. Obviously he didn't use tiers either, so I've tried to sub-divide his 35 ranked players based on... well, guesswork. Basically when there's a big drop from one player to the next is where I inserted a break.

Tier 1: Graf, Navratilova, Serena, Evert, Seles, Venus, Court​

Tier 2: Davenport, Sanchez-Vicario, King, Hingis, Sabatini, Henin, Sharapova, Clijsters​

Tier 3: Martinez, Azarenka, Mandlikova, Novotna, Austin, Goolagong, Mauresmo, Pierce, Wade​

Tier 4: Shriver, Kuznetsova, Mary-Jo Fernandez, Wozniacki, Halep​

Tier 5: Dementieva, Garrison, Barty, Kvitova, Jaeger, Li Na​

I bolded the seven on his list who you omitted. The four you included which didn't make his list are Capriati, Kerber, Osaka, and Swiatek. Iga obviously suffers the most from the '22 cut-off.


Looking at your choices, I think I'd have Kvitova and Sanchez-Vicario higher. And I agree with @anarosevoli on adding Muguruza.

 

[bluetrain4]

Despite just one Slam, I'd put Sabatini higher. The depth of her resume outside of her Slam is considerably more than the other players listed in Tier 5. Could make the same case for Martinez who isn't even listed, and Novatna. I'm basically looking at Slam finals in addition to the one Slam won, overall tournament wins, including Tier 1, Slam "deep runs" (QF or better), and wins over top players (even more if on the biggest stages). Martinez has a ton of deep runs and a lot of overall titles, but she lags in wins over the top players of her generation, particularly Graf and Seles (she has one vs. each, never in Slams, though she beat ASV a few times on the biggest stages). Sabatini has the deep runs and titles and the top-player wins, having beat Graf and Seles multiple times, including Graf in a Slam final and Seles in Tier 1 tourneys.

It's an interesting exercise to see how much people feel the need to bunch similar amounts of Slams together on a Tier; i.e., how much do Slams count over everything else.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Despite just one Slam, I'd put Sabatini higher. The depth of her resume outside of her Slam is considerably more than the other players listed in Tier 5. Could make the same case for Martinez who isn't even listed, and Novatna. I'm basically looking at Slam finals in addition to the one Slam won, overall tournament wins, including Tier 1, Slam "deep runs" (QF or better), and wins over top players. Martinez has a ton of deep runs and a lot of overall titles, but she lags in wins over the top players of her generation, particularly Graf and Seles (she has one vs. each, never in Slams, though she beat ASV a few times on the biggest stages). Sabatini has the deep runs and titles and the top-player wins, having beat Graf and Seles multiple times, including Graf in a Slam final.

It's an interesting exercise to see how much people feel the need to bunch similar amounts of Slams together on a Tier; i.e., how much do Slams count over everything else.

Sabatini has 15 semi-finals in addition to her one slam and her two finals. She also has 2 YECs. For a one-slammer this is as accomplished as it can get.

 

[bluetrain4]

Sabatini has 15 semi-finals in addition to her one slam and her two finals. She also has 2 YECs. For a one-slammer this is as accomplished as it can get.

Agreed

 

[martinezownsclay]

Well I was more adding Seles as it would look weird to me to have a whole tier for BJK on her own. However, after further consideration: while I had my fair share to argue with those people in the other thread trying to grant Seles 20 or even 30 slams (lol) I also cannot really buy into the other extreme and believe that in any possible scenario bar a career ending injury she ends up below 12 if it wasn’t for the stabbing. It is easy of course to dismiss every hypothetical and say that as unfair it was, we can only assess what actually happened, however, different to injuries which you can at least partly blame the player for in some cases, here something hapoened which was zero in Seles control and which was intentionally aimed at destroying her career so I am willing to grant her at least some hypothetical extra bonus.

The 1-9 H2H looks bad of course but they never played during Seles prime, not even close. Not sure how to factor in doubles, but Venus having a (borderline) GOAT candidate sister playing doubles with her is also an advantage.

Well on your first point in the hypothetical King played the Australian and French every year she almost certainly winds up with atleast 16 too, and then there is her doubles career to consider too. And I still view, even by modern day thinking, Wimbledon as the most prestigious/important and US Open and Wimbledon as the two most, and King won 10 combined Wimbledon/US Opens, 6 Wimbledons, both figures Seles would never come within a million miles of even without the stabbing.

Yes I know Seles was not in her prime when she was playing Venus, but I still stand by my original viewpoint I could never see Seles in a higher tier altogether than Venus, especialy considering I factor those who also excel in doubles into my assessments, which of course also applies to King. And Venus won mixed doubles titles with some clods, like Justin Gimbelstob for instance, and numerous other guys, so while she only plays womens with her sister, I am quite sure she is skills in doubles on her own right. She would never want to play womens with anyone but her sister for obvious reasons, but I am sure her doubles success is not just down to Serena.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Despite just one Slam, I'd put Sabatini higher. The depth of her resume outside of her Slam is considerably more than the other players listed in Tier 5. Could make the same case for Martinez who isn't even listed, and Novatna. I'm basically looking at Slam finals in addition to the one Slam won, overall tournament wins, including Tier 1, Slam "deep runs" (QF or better), and wins over top players (even more if on the biggest stages). Martinez has a ton of deep runs and a lot of overall titles, but she lags in wins over the top players of her generation, particularly Graf and Seles (she has one vs. each, never in Slams, though she beat ASV a few times on the biggest stages). Sabatini has the deep runs and titles and the top-player wins, having beat Graf and Seles multiple times, including Graf in a Slam final and Seles in Tier 1 tourneys.

It's an interesting exercise to see how much people feel the need to bunch similar amounts of Slams together on a Tier; i.e., how much do Slams count over everything else.

Valid points on Sabatini. So would you move her into Tier 4? I am sure that would create some controversy but I can see the arguments.

And keep Novotna in tier 5 and keep Conchita below the bottom tier and not listed altogether?

 

[bluetrain4]

Valid points on Sabatini. So would you move her into Tier 4? I am sure that would create some controversy but I can see the arguments.

And keep Novotna in tier 5 and keep Conchita below the bottom tier and not listed altogether?

Sabatini definitely on Tier 4, and there could be arguments for Tier 3. Can make a good case for Novotna on 4. Martinez needs to be listed, even if on Tier 5 - she achieved a lot, even if she's an afterthought to a lot of people.

 

[buscemi]

Just out of curiosity, I cross-checked your choices against Sackmann's Tennis 128. Things to remember are that (a) he based his list on results prior to the 2022 season, and (b) he more or less ignored doubles. Obviously he didn't use tiers either, so I've tried to sub-divide his 35 ranked players based on... well, guesswork. Basically when there's a big drop from one player to the next is where I inserted a break.

Tier 1: Graf, Navratilova, Serena, Evert, Seles, Venus, Court​

Tier 2: Davenport, Sanchez-Vicario, King, Hingis, Sabatini, Henin, Sharapova, Clijsters​

Tier 3: Martinez, Azarenka, Mandlikova, Novotna, Austin, Goolagong, Mauresmo, Pierce, Wade​

Tier 4: Shriver, Kuznetsova, Mary-Jo Fernandez, Wozniacki, Halep​

Tier 5: Dementieva, Garrison, Barty, Kvitova, Jaeger, Li Na​

I bolded the seven on his list who you omitted. The four you included which didn't make his list are Capriati, Kerber, Osaka, and Swiatek. Iga obviously suffers the most from the '22 cut-off.


Looking at your choices, I think I'd have Kvitova and Sanchez-Vicario higher. And I agree with @anarosevoli on adding Muguruza.

This seems like a bizarre list to have players like Fernandez, Dementieva, Garrison, and Jaeger, with no time at #1 and no Majors, over players like Capriati, Kerber, and Osaka, who all won 3/4 Majors and had time at #1 (Swiatek, too, but the timing of the list comes into play there).

 

[martinezownsclay]

This seems like a bizarre list to have players like Fernandez, Dementieva, Garrison, and Jaeger, with no time at #1 and no Majors, over players like Capriati, Kerber, and Osaka, who all won 3/4 Majors and had time at #1 (Swiatek, too, but the timing of the list comes into play there).

I would NEVER include Fernandez, even if she won a major. Her records vs the best are just abysmal. She never beat Graf. Her only win over Seles was as a 15 year old. She never beat Evert, who was back then an ancient playing age for all their matches. She is also 0-8 vs Navratilova, who was well in her 30s for almost al their matches too. She only played Hingis 3 times, so losing all 3 isn't a big deal, but she was utter dog mush in all 3 matches.

Garrison on paper had a less successful career than Fernandez, but in a way I think she is better since she atleast beat all the big guns. Jaeger the same. Dementieva the same. That said would include none of those, even in the bottom tier greats. If Dementieva had won a slam, with her overall career, maybe in her case, but she didn't. If Garrison had won Wimbledon 90 I would have considered including her, but as it was she wasn't even close to winning the actual final; and even then probably not, she would have likely needed to make the US Open finals atleast once.

 

[anarosevoli]

I considered Muguruza but was on the fence due to her only having 10 titles and no real doubles. Do you know how many of her non slam titles are Premier though? Maybe I will add her.

She has 3 1000s (Bejing, Cincinnati and Dubai), one 500 (Chicago) and 3 MM. Everything on hardcourt, on grass and clay she only has slams.

 

[stormholloway]

Hard to argue about slam count when so many players in the 70s and even 80s barely played the Aussie.

 

[buscemi]

The reason I have Pierce in Tier 4 with only 2 slams and no time at #1 is her 6 slam finals and her incredible 6-0 career slam semi final record. The reason I have Halep with only 2 slams is her time at #1.

Not sure I agree with having Pierce in a different tier than Azarenka.

As you note, Pierce was never #1 (never even #2) while Azarena had 51 weeks at #1 and a year-end #1.

You note Pierce's 6 Major finals. That's great, but only one more than Azarenka, who had 5.

You also note Pierce's 6-0 record in Major SFs, but that also means she only reached 6 Major SFs vs. Azarenka reaching 9. Put another way, Pierce was 6-8 in Major QFs while Azarenka was 9-9.

Beyond that, Azarenka has more wins, a higher winning percentage, and 3 more titles.

I'm not saying Azarenka is better than Pierce, but I think they're close enough that they should be in the same tier.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Not sure I agree with having Pierce in a different tier than Azarenka.

As you note, Pierce was never #1 (never even #2) while Azarena had 51 weeks at #1 and a year-end #1.

You note Pierce's 6 Major finals. That's great, but only one more than Azarenka, who had 5.

You also note Pierce's 6-0 record in Major SFs, but that also means she only reached 6 Major SFs vs. Azarenka reaching 9. Put another way, Pierce was 6-8 in Major SFs while Azarenka was 9-9.

Beyond that, Azarenka has more wins, a higher winning percentage, and 3 more titles.

I'm not saying Azarenka is better than Pierce, but I think they're close enough that they should be in the same tier.

Actually now that you put it that way I tend to agree. Azarenka should probably be moved up a tier rather than Pierce down one though IMO. Azarenka was also Serena's only real rival for a period (considering the Maria rivalry was a joke).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Well on your first point in the hypothetical King played the Australian and French every year she almost certainly winds up with atleast 16 too, and then there is her doubles career to consider too. And I still view, even by modern day thinking, Wimbledon as the most prestigious/important and US Open and Wimbledon as the two most, and King won 10 combined Wimbledon/US Opens, 6 Wimbledons, both figures Seles would never come within a million miles of even without the stabbing.

Well for me, skipping slams voluntarily is still different than being forcibly removed by a maniac but I also won’t die on that hill. It however makes it even tougher to put BJK into the same tier as Venus/Henin.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Well for me, skipping slams voluntarily is still different than being forcibly removed by a maniac but I also won’t die on that hill. It however makes it even tougher to put BJK into the same tier as Venus/Henin.

I agree in principle, but in this case it is the context of that era. Everyone skipped many Australians and some French Opens, except for Australian players when it came to the Australian Open. That is just the reality of the time, it isn't individual cases. I am sure you would agree on the same thing when evaluating Borg's career, despite that Borg came later on when this mindset was starting to fade slightly (although still existing). If Borg played even in the 90s when Agassi was skipping Australian Opens and the odd French or Wimbledon, you would say "it was all up to him, it means nothing" which would be true as it applies to someone like Agassi who deserves no extra context, but the 70s or 60s, and even possibly early 80s, were different.

I don't get into something truly subjective like "well what if King wasn't focused on starting the womens tour", which I won't even mention at all, despite that it is possible she could have won many more slams, especialy the 69-71 period where she had her worst ever slump and went 11 consecutive majors without winning one (of course part of her problem was a revived Court was beasting, and young superstar Goolagong emerged before all her mental issues took hold) where she was likely distracted by all she was taking on. But I would not give her any consideration for that.

I do agree it is hard to put King into the same tier as Venus or Henin, although it is even harder to put her in the same tier as Court, Graf, Serena, Navratilova, Evert.

 

[bluetrain4]

Valid points on Sabatini. So would you move her into Tier 4? I am sure that would create some controversy but I can see the arguments.

And keep Novotna in tier 5 and keep Conchita below the bottom tier and not listed altogether?

It's an inexact science. People on the same tier don't have to be equal. There will be the top, middle, and bottom of the tier. Martinez and Novotna can be on the same tier. If players with disparate stats needed to be separated, then we'd just individually rank everyone instead of creating tiers.

 

[Pheasant]

I’d put Seles and King in tier 2. King has the better aggregate numbers of those two, but Seles has a much better peak. From Oct of 1990 to Spring of 1993, Seles played in 36 tournaments. She won 24 of those tournaments. And she was in the final in 35 of those 36 tournaments. She also had a record of 68-1 during that time frame in the 5 biggest tournaments. I.e, she won 67% of the tourneys she entered while making the final 97% of the time. To put that info perspective, Federer’s best year was 2006, a year he won 70% of his tournaments while making the final 94% of the time.

Seles belongs in tier 2 with King, IMHO.

 

[Hard Court]

Seles has a good case. Before the stabbing, she was on her way to being Top Tier.
I guess my biggest argument would be Goolagong. She should be Tier 2. Goolagong won the same amount of Grand Slam titles as V. Williams and Henin who are in Tier 2. She got to more finals than either. (10 of her 11 of her GS finals losses were to King, Court, or Evert). She won more tournaments that either. Statistics aside, just watching her play shows that she was right up there.
Overall, though, it is a very good list.

 

[martinezownsclay]

The reason I did not put Goolagong in Tier 2 are:

1. I don't really regard her as having 7 slams considering 4 of the slams were Australian Opens which was a non real slam back then. And if Court who was a fully dominant player is not going to have her 24 slams fully recognized by people due to some of them being Australian Opens, there is no way someone like Goolagong who was never a dominant player should have hers fully recognized when over half her slams come there. She failed to win a single non Australian Open between 71 to 80. If one is generous give her 2 of her 4 Australians, for 5 slams.

2. I definitely do not rank her higher than Martina HIngis. In fact I rank Hingis above her without even a second thought. So if Hingis can't be tier 2 (and I suspect most think she isn't, although just as you could argue for Goolagong, you could definitely argue for Hingis being tier 2, but as it is I didn't have even Hingis in tier 2), then Goolagong who I definitely don't rank above Hingis shouldn't. Honestly I would rank Hingis above her in singles alone, that is before even getting into doubles where Hingis had brilliant success.

3. Goolagong was probably never for even a moment the best player in the world. Unlike Venus, Henin, and even Hingis who as I just said I still have only in Tier 3, like Goolagong, who were not only the best for a period but the dominant player for a brief period of time each.

4. As you probably noticed I originally had King in Tier 2, and King was so far superior to her in a similar era, I could never have put them in the same tier. Honestly King seems closer to Court than Goolagong does to King if anything (although both gaps are significant).

BTW just to be clear I have no problem with your opinion of Goolagong belonging Tier 2. Just why I didn't put her there based on my original thinking.

 

[Hard Court]

I guess we are looking at things in different ways. Anyway I guess here is how would respond:
1. Agree that sometimes the Australian Open was not that strong. However in 1994 she had to beat Evert to win it. In 1975, she beat Navratilova (who had earlier beaten Court). Surely those have to count.
It is a little deceiving that she never won a non-Australian Open major between 1971-1980. It's not like she never did anything all that time. She was a runnerup 4 times at the U.S. Open, and three times at Wimbledon in that time. She also won two Tour Finals. And course beating Evert and Navratilova in those Aussie Finals.

2. I think she was better than Hingis, at singles anyway. If we are counting doubles, that changes the whole list. (And would doubles be 50% of the equation?)
Goolagong won 86 tournaments in her career, exactly twice as many as Hingis won.
3.
As for being #1. She was probably #1 in 1971, before the Computer. (Lance Tingay had her #1 that year. Collins had her #2) She won both the French and Wimbledon that year. She was #1 for part of 1976. Yes Venus, Henin and Hingis were #1 for longer, but that is deceiving. Look who she was behind:

1973 - Only King and Court.
1974 - Only King
1975 - Only Evert and King
1976 - Only Evert
1977 - Had a baby. Didn't play much.
1978 - Only Evert and Navratilova
1979 - Only behind Evert, Navratilova and Austin

Williams, Henin, and Hingis would not have been #1 in any of those years either.

She was serious competition for Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. She had some success against them. Not as good, but a worthy adversary.

4. I think you putting King at 1.5 was a good idea. King wasn't as good as the Tier 1 players but was better than the Tier 2.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I guess we are looking at things in different ways. Anyway I guess here is how would respond:
1. Agree that sometimes the Australian Open was not that strong. However in 1994 she had to beat Evert to win it. In 1975, she beat Navratilova (who had earlier beaten Court). Surely those have to count.
It is a little deceiving that she never won a non-Australian Open major between 1971-1980. It's not like she never did anything all that time. She was a runnerup 4 times at the U.S. Open, and three times at Wimbledon in that time. She also won two Tour Finals. And course beating Evert and Navratilova in those Aussie Finals.

2. I think she was better than Hingis, at singles anyway. If we are counting doubles, that changes the whole list. (And would doubles be 50% of the equation?)
Goolagong won 86 tournaments in her career, exactly twice as many as Hingis won.
3.
As for being #1. She was probably #1 in 1971, before the Computer. (Lance Tingay had her #1 that year. Collins had her #2) She won both the French and Wimbledon that year. She was #1 for part of 1976. Yes Venus, Henin and Hingis were #1 for longer, but that is deceiving. Look who she was behind:

1973 - Only King and Court.
1974 - Only King
1975 - Only Evert and King
1976 - Only Evert
1977 - Had a baby. Didn't play much.
1978 - Only Evert and Navratilova
1979 - Only behind Evert, Navratilova and Austin

Williams, Henin, and Hingis would not have been #1 in any of those years either.

She was serious competition for Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. She had some success against them. Not as good, but a worthy adversary.

4. I think you putting King at 1.5 was a good idea. King wasn't as good as the Tier 1 players but was better than the Tier 2.

1. In 75 both King and Evert who were by far (especialy of the non Goolagong people) were absent from the Australian Open. Both of those were better than 75 version Navratilova (or a 33 year old semi retired Court) by a huge margin, so it still was a really depleted slam. 74 atleast she beat Evert, which was literally her only truly big win ever in any of her Australian Open wins, but King who was clearly the best grass court player in the world at the time was absent. You said surely those have to count, well I guesstimated 2 of 4 is a reasonable thing to go with, so giving her 74 and 75 while omiting the other two would go along with that. Still leaves her at 5 majors which is what I said she should be regarded as, a 5 slam winner due to 4 of her 7 official slams being Australian Opens, not a 7, which is not up with Henin and Venus, atleast as far as slam wins, and only on par with Hingis, but really a bit inferior to Hingis when Hingis had a 3 slam year.

2. I strongly disagree with her being better than Hingis at singles. Hingis's 97 already convinces me of that. I would bet my life you could put Goolagong in any era or any time, and she would never have a super dominant 3 slam year, or a pretty dominant 2.5 year stretch she won 5 of 9 slams. Would never happen. I also don't see Goolagong spending a lot of time at #1 in the rankings in the era of huge hitters like Davenport, Venus, Serena, Pierce, an older Graf all ranging from somewhere to at their peaks to semi prime, as Hingis did.

And no I definitely wouldn't give doubles 50% credit, LOL! Even 10-20% credit would be enough to cement Hingis above Goolagong if we concede at worst for Hingis, they are comparable in singles. For what it is worth I have never seen a major tennis publication that ranked Goolagong higher than Hingis yet. Maybe one existed, but I haven't seen it yet, and I have seen a quite a few come out with rankings. *shrugs*

3. That is subjective of course. I personally could see Venus of 2000-2003 being the defacto best player and winning Wimbledon and the US Open jointly a number of those years you listed. Not sure about how often she would be ranked #1 as it is true her schedule and year consistency isn't that condusive to being ranked #1 too often. Henin and Hingis, well an era 3 of the 4 slams were on grass would not be beneficial to them so it is hard to say. I do think both spent more time at #1 when they played than Goolagong hypothetically ever would have however,

 

[Moose Malloy]

This seems like a bizarre list to have players like Fernandez, Dementieva, Garrison, and Jaeger, with no time at #1 and no Majors, over players like Capriati, Kerber, and Osaka, who all won 3/4 Majors and had time at #1 (Swiatek, too, but the timing of the list comes into play there).

Capriati is #47(its a combined mens and womens list) on his list, and is ranked above all the players you mentioned.

Introducing The Tennis 128 – Heavy Topspin

his ranking is based on ELO, which I believe rewards consistency(it can take years to build up a peak ELO rating - many losses can bump you down), wins against other highly ranked ELO players etc. Osaka basically just won majors and no other events, so I can see why she wouldn't rate highly in that method. Someone like Fernandez played in a high ELO era(with all her meetings vs Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Sabatini etc) and rarely lost to low ranked ELO players I'm guessing. There are a lot less highly ranked ELO players in recent years due to inconsistent top players (and as we all know - many one slam wonders etc) so guessing that explains Kerber not making cut.

Sampras always fares poorly in ELO(I've seen many posters create ELO rankings over the years here) since he only cared about majors. You can see he's behind Lendl, Mac, Borg in the list.

 

[puppybutts]

I agree with almost everything. But despite low number of overall titles (10) I would add Muguruza to Tier 5 where nobody except her has 2 slams, number one ranking and WTA finals. Only Azarenka has 2 slams and number one ranking (but Mug has channel slam, Azarenka only 2 AO).

isn't it only considered a channel slam if they won RG and W in the same year? otherwise the difficulty of winning them back to back doesn't really come into play

 

[puppybutts]

A lot of these players are hard to judge. Osaka for example has 4 major titles and reached #1, but has 0 wins at the YEC and only 7 overall titles. Wozniacki on the other hand only has 1 slam but 30 singles titles and almost a year's worth more weeks at #1.

I feel like anyone with 2 major titles deserves to be included on the list of greats, meaning Li Na. Her career isn't too dissimilar from Kuznetsova's. Kuznetsova does have 18 singles titles vs Li Na's 9, but I think that's reasonable given Li Na having to pioneer through China's system and deal with her knee. Esp. if Muguruza is on here - Mugu did reach #1, but honestly probably only because Serena wasn't there to defend any points after the AO in 2017

 

[PDJ]

Not a full ranking list, but a tier list. What tiers would you put the Open Era female greats into. Here would be mine.

Tier 1 (chronological order, not ranking order)-. Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Serena
Tier 1.5 (her own tier)- King
Tier 2 (chronological order again)- Seles, Henin, Venus
Tier 3- Goolagong, Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, Sharapova
Tier 4- Wade, Austin, Mandlikova, Sabatini (controversial but someone listed some great reasons to put her here), Sanchez Vicario (she could well be tier 3 but I choose against it, even if her and Sabatini in the same tier might seem strange), Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo, Azarenka Kerber, Barty, Halep, Osaka, Swiatek
Tier 5- Novotna, Martinez, Kuznetsova, Azarenka, Wozniacki, Kvitova, Muguruza

Some explanations on certain people.

Some might argue King should be Tier 1 but I disagree. With only 12 singles slams, a 10-22 head to head with Court, and clearly beneath Court (by a good margin) as the best player of her era, she is not in the same tier as the top 5 women of the Open Era.

The reason I have Davenport in Tier 3 with only 3 slams is her 55 singles titles and having 4 Year End #1s, even if 1 of those (2001) is totally bogus.

The reason I have Pierce in Tier 4 with only 2 slams and no time at #1 is her 6 slam finals and her incredible 6-0 career slam semi final record. The reason I have Halep with only 2 slams is her time at #1.

The reason I have Sabatini in Tier 5 great at all is her 18 slam semis, and all her Premier titles in her career. Plus having the bad luck of Graf, Seles, Navratilova in her way for years, and by the time the field was getting weaker she was declining. The reason I have Novotna is mainly for her doubles career in conjuction with her singles career, not her singles career alone. I don't have Conchita Martinez as she has neither of those points going for her and isn't as good a player as they are anyway. I thought of including Stosur for her doubles career in conjuction with her singles career, but it is probably too much a stretch in her case. I thought of including Na Li, but decided her career was not enough, even with 2 slams (Kuznetsova has similar slam win and final stats, but was a top player a lot longer, even though neither reached #1). I included Kvitova since Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam, even today, plus being the real #1 of the year 2011.

I am sure I forgot some players by accident so feel free to fill those in are the ones who you feel I have in the wrong tier.

Edit- already made some changes after talking to some people.

What's your rationale at putting Goolagong-Cawley in tier 3 rather than 2? Is it based on doubles? Otherwise, I can't see why she ranks behind Venus for example.

 

[martinezownsclay]

What's your rationale at putting Goolagong-Cawley in tier 3 rather than 2? Is it based on doubles? Otherwise, I can't see why she ranks behind Venus for example.

Pretty easy. 4 of her 7 slams were Australian Opens which was a non real slam back then. It is the same reason most don't regard Court as the GOAT, when otherwise with her 24 slams and 62 overall slams, nearly everyone would.

 

[BTURNER]

Pretty easy. 4 of her 7 slams were Australian Opens which was a non real slam back then. It is the same reason most don't regard Court as the GOAT, when otherwise with her 24 slams and 62 overall slams, nearly everyone would.

What is your position on doubles and mixed doubles in this discussion? Hardly anyone can articulate an objective or measurable standard that is consistent.

 

[PDJ]

Pretty easy. 4 of her 7 slams were Australian Opens which was a non real slam back then. It is the same reason most don't regard Court as the GOAT, when otherwise with her 24 slams and 62 overall slams, nearly everyone would.

We agree to disagree.
I would place Goolagong-Cawley in Tier 2.
I don't subscribe to a GOAT, so Court's record - regardless of my personal loathing for her views - sees her in Tier 1 with other ATGs.

 

[Mainad]

I considered Muguruza but was on the fence due to her only having 10 titles and no real doubles. Do you know how many of her non slam titles are Premier though? Maybe I will add her.

She has 3 Premier Mandatory titles (now called WTA 1000s): 2016 Beijing, 2017 Cincinnati, 2021 Dubai.

 

[martinezownsclay]

What is your position on doubles and mixed doubles in this discussion? Hardly anyone can articulate an objective or measurable standard that is consistent.

Honestly don't have an exact critiera, but I would guess I give them roughly 15% value. I have argued things like Navratilova and Court should be above Graf based on doubles, when most have Graf over both, even if singles Graf would probably be ahead, and that both should clearly be over Evert based on doubles, when again in singles Evert would atleast be competitive. I argued that Venus should clearly be above Henin, when many have Henin ahead, and even has a case to be over Seles, based on doubles. I have even argued McEnroe has a case to be over Lendl and Connors, when on just singles he would clearly be behind, again based on doubles. So whatever that value adds up to, would roughly give you an idea, but I have never come up with an exact percentage or anything. It is a complicated thing, I definitely don't view doubles as equal value to singles for sure, or even close to it, but I believe it should have some value and players that really excelled in both should get some extra credit where many gives them none. It is a hard thing to guage really.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Pretty easy. 4 of her 7 slams were Australian Opens which was a non real slam back then. It is the same reason most don't regard Court as the GOAT, when otherwise with her 24 slams and 62 overall slams, nearly everyone would.

I'll just copy paste my post from your other thread on Goolagong - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ted-in-historical-lists.741605/#post-17021338

Second, you seem to be to be falling into the trap of judging past players by todays standards(where everyone pretty much only cares about majors). In the 70s players were judged by a lot of other factors(prize money, win %, win streaks, head to heads etc).

I'm not going to do a deep dive into Goolagong's career but her YEC titles in 74 and 76 were huge(beat Evert in both finals), and both wins were treated like majors by the media back then. Goolagong was even on the cover of SI after her '76 win! and there was a very detailed article in there as well - I've never seen any RG from the 70s covered in that magazine like they covered the YEC. Ditto with coverage in NY Times, Washington Post etc. Her 40k winner's check was also a big deal(that was more than the USO and Wimbledon paid combined for winning the women's events back then).

Her win streak to begin 76 was much reported on (the YEC was her 20th match in a row - it was played in April those years - and she barely lost any sets during that streak) and the rivalry between her and Evert was basically as big as it got for women's tennis in those years(the head to head was close after that win, and she had just beaten Evert in Philadelphia as well - the hype over the rivalry was huge going into that years' Wimbledon final). Shame the 76 USO final was a dud.

check out this from the NY Times:

In one of those outstanding tennis matches that found both women at the top of their game, the Australian won from Chris Evert, 6‐3, 5‐7, 6‐3, in nearly two hours and took the Virginia Slims championship with its $40,000 first prize.

Five years ago, as a precocious 19‐year‐old, Miss Goolagong flashed on the world scene by taking the Wimbledon and French titles. She had done nothing so important since. But today's victory in one of the three major women's championships and a 20‐match winning streak must rank her as no. 1.

“It's the best match we ever played,” said Miss Goolagong, “I felt I'd kept at high level all year and this topped it off.”


They called it one of the three major championships! Yet another reason comparing players from different eras is sort of silly...

 

[BTURNER]

Honestly don't have an exact critiera, but I would guess I give them roughly 15% value. I have argued things like Navratilova and Court should be above Graf based on doubles, when most have Graf over both, even if singles Graf would probably be ahead, and that both should clearly be over Evert based on doubles, when again in singles Evert would atleast be competitive. I argued that Venus should clearly be above Henin, when many have Henin ahead, and even has a case to be over Seles, based on doubles. I have even argued McEnroe has a case to be over Lendl and Connors, when on just singles he would clearly be behind, again based on doubles. So whatever that value adds up to, would roughly give you an idea, but I have never come up with an exact percentage or anything. It is a complicated thing, I definitely don't view doubles as equal value to singles for sure, or even close to it, but I believe it should have some value and players that really excelled in both should get some extra credit where many gives them none. It is a hard thing to guage really.

I think you should give it some more thought so that you are consistent with exactly what role those doubles titles should play. Its important to realize that depth of field in doubles is as important as it is in singles and in eras where few top players regularly support doubles and mixed, the winners are as compromised as Court is in her Aussies. One thing you cannot deny, when Margaret Court or BJK won a doubles title, it was a serious doubles title because it was a clear expectation back then that spectators who bought tickets got to see the seeds on the court in play, and with fewer seeds fewer rounds, and fewer celebrity players, it was the doubles and mixed that helped provide a ticket's worth of access to name players. That 15% value may be fine in the declining decades of 1990's and beyond with lower interest levels, lower press coverage, and fewer top ten players, but you are going to have to do better than that during times when players and fans took it more seriously.

 

[PDJ]

I'll just copy paste my post from your other thread on Goolagong - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ted-in-historical-lists.741605/#post-17021338

An excellent post.
As I stated previously, I personally have Goolagong-Cawley in Tier 2.

 

[muddlehead]

Hard to quibble.
You're essentially going by majors.
Just me - I have BJK in her own tier also
Above 1
Singles / dubs / WTT / career off the court as a game changing kick ass female

 

[thrust]

King is tricky. Obviously she has no business being in Court’s tier, but having her in Venus/Henin tier is also tough. We can argue for Seles due to circumstances of her career, but 12vs7 is hard to argue. Maybe one could have a separate tier for King/Seles.

I would have Seles in the King tier. Monica won 9 slams and probably would have won more, if not for the stabbing.

 

[BTURNER]

I would have Seles in the King tier. Monica won 9 slams and probably would have won more, if not for the stabbing.

Are we now choosing these tiers based on slams these women did not win, but 'should have won but for...?' We can't do that, without taking them away from other women who won all seven matches ( or 6 +bye) beating everyone they encountered in the draw that they were handed. These are not titles we are allowed to bestow on 'deserving' players.

 

[toth]

I would not rank Seles this way.
She had only a start of a carier and she was stabbing

 

[boredone3456]

A note on King. Court Largely overshadows her because Court religiously played the Australian Open, and King did not. Take out all their Aussie titles and the Major count becomes 13-11 in Courts Favor....much closer than the 24-12 number factoring in the AO.

King also only played the French about 5 times during her prime years....in part this was due to her involvement in World Team Tennis which overshadowed the French for years.

King has twice as many Wimbledon titles (which given the way the tour was structured at the time was arguably the most important of the 4 majors, even though now that can be argued as not the case), and more combined Wimbledon/US Open titles (the 2 most important majors at the time based on usual participation by all the top players in the world).

While I agree with King being in her own tier, I wouldn't say she's "a good margin" beneath Court, because in reality removing 1 tournament from the equation, that becomes clearly untrue.

 

[thrust]

Are we now choosing these tiers based on slams these women did not win, but 'should have won but for...?' We can't do that, without taking them away from other women who won all seven matches ( or 6 +bye) beating everyone they encountered in the draw that they were handed. These are not titles we are allowed to bestow on 'deserving' players.

The fact IS though, Seles was dominating Graf in the slams having won 3 of the 4 slam finals they played before the stabbing. King won 12 slams, Seles having played fewer slams than King, won 9 which IMO qualifies her to be in the 1.5 tier with King.

 

[martinezownsclay]

A note on King. Court Largely overshadows her because Court religiously played the Australian Open, and King did not. Take out all their Aussie titles and the Major count becomes 13-11 in Courts Favor....much closer than the 24-12 number factoring in the AO.

King also only played the French about 5 times during her prime years....in part this was due to her involvement in World Team Tennis which overshadowed the French for years.

King has twice as many Wimbledon titles (which given the way the tour was structured at the time was arguably the most important of the 4 majors, even though now that can be argued as not the case), and more combined Wimbledon/US Open titles (the 2 most important majors at the time based on usual participation by all the top players in the world).

While I agree with King being in her own tier, I wouldn't say she's "a good margin" beneath Court, because in reality removing 1 tournament from the equation, that becomes clearly untrue.

Doesn't Court have a quite large (I don't know the exact figure as each site seems to give a different stat, but I believe it is roughly 2 wins for Court to ever 1 win for King) lead in head to head too?

I see what you are saying, but I also think it is very likely for a variety of reasons (home country advantage, courts perfect for her) Court wins the Australian Open many more times than King even if both had played the event every year. So she would still be up more than a 13 to 11 margin, even if not a 24 to 12 margin likely either.

You do make a great point though about King having more combined US Opens/Wimbledons than Court. And those were the 2 most important events then. So maybe the gap between them isn't as much as seemed, definitely not the 24 to 12 gap of their slams.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I would not rank Seles this way.
She had only a start of a carier and she was stabbing

Well she has to be ranked somewhere. To not rank her, is to imply she isn't a great at all, which would be far worse.

And despite the stabbing she did have an extensive career. She played full time again for another 8 years from ages 21 to 29. She won another slam and reached another 4 slam finals, and won many tournaments. Yes the stabbing probably had some long term impact on her career, but one can't act like she didn't resume her career and was just done either.

 

[thrust]

Doesn't Court have a quite large (I don't know the exact figure as each site seems to give a different stat, but I believe it is roughly 2 wins for Court to ever 1 win for King) lead in head to head too?

I see what you are saying, but I also think it is very likely for a variety of reasons (home country advantage, courts perfect for her) Court wins the Australian Open many more times than King even if both had played the event every year. So she would still be up more than a 13 to 11 margin, even if not a 24 to 12 margin likely either.

You do make a great point though about King having more combined US Opens/Wimbledons than Court. And those were the 2 most important events then. So maybe the gap between them isn't as much as seemed, definitely not the 24 to 12 gap of their slams.

A FEW FACTS:
Court won 190 tournaments, at least. King won 105 or so.
Court has a considerably higher winning % than King and the highest in the open era.
Court won 5 FO, King-1
Court won 5 US0, King-4
Court beat King in all their Federation Cup matches
Court beat King in 2 of her AO wins,
Court beat Bueno in 2 other of her AO wins
Court beat King 4 of the 5 slam finals they played, including their 2 Wimbledon finals.