I would say rather the stabbing probably had extremely much inpact on her career...
This is the reason i dont like these rankings
Divide the womens Open Era greats into tiers
- Thread starter martinezownsclay
- Start date
This is the reason i dont like these rankings
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
There is no perfect way to rate Seles. I think the best we can do is rate on what she did manage to accomplish. If she is about even with someone else, (i.e. Grand Slams won, tournaments won etc.) then she should get the benefit of the doubt. As of right now, she probably should be in the 1.5 category.
muddlehead
Professional
Seles
How do rate her?
Like Laver
Rod couldn't play majors for 5 years - '63-'67
Since he won GS in '62 and again in '69, put him down for MINIMUM 1 year in '63-'67
Making his total majors 16 at a MINIMUM
That's why I have him tied for GOAT w/Djoker
Seles
She should be thought of historically as a more than 9x major winner
Period
How do rate her?
Like Laver
Rod couldn't play majors for 5 years - '63-'67
Since he won GS in '62 and again in '69, put him down for MINIMUM 1 year in '63-'67
Making his total majors 16 at a MINIMUM
That's why I have him tied for GOAT w/Djoker
Seles
She should be thought of historically as a more than 9x major winner
Period
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
This where it gets tricky. If we are going to give him titles from 1963-1967, then should we be giving him all 11 titles when he was an amateur and not the best player in the world?
I think he probably would have won about 8 GS titles from 1963-1967, but that is just a guess. He probably could have won a few in the 1970s if he would have played them more.
For Seles, in all probability, she would have won several more. But how many, 5, 10, 15? Who knows.
I think he probably would have won about 8 GS titles from 1963-1967, but that is just a guess. He probably could have won a few in the 1970s if he would have played them more.
For Seles, in all probability, she would have won several more. But how many, 5, 10, 15? Who knows.
Thank you for this. This is not to slight Court but I never felt she was THAT dominant when I actually looked into what she won and who she faced.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Rod Laver isn't really rated as a what if case though. He is rated due to context of his time. That is totally different. Court likewise is rated largely by context of her time negatively (Australian Open = not real slam = not recognized as a true 24 slam winner). And Emerson by the context of his time even more negatively (12 slams when all the best players were pro = joke = 4 slam calibre player at best). Gonzales is also rated by the context of the time very positively. Those aren't what if cases, it is a fact on the mens side the best tournaments and fields were professional, not even the slams, in those years.
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
We aren't going to count Court's Australian titles, not even when she beat King, Bueno, or Goolagong.
We also can't count King's Wimbledon title in 1967, or her French, Wimbledon or US Open titles in 1972, because Court did not compete in those. This brings King down to about the level of Venus Williams and Justine Henin.
We also can't count the last 9 of Serena Williams titles since the competition was not strong. This takes her down to 14. So instead of being #1 and # 2 in Grand Slams, Williams and Court are really just 4th and 5th.
We also can't count King's Wimbledon title in 1967, or her French, Wimbledon or US Open titles in 1972, because Court did not compete in those. This brings King down to about the level of Venus Williams and Justine Henin.
We also can't count the last 9 of Serena Williams titles since the competition was not strong. This takes her down to 14. So instead of being #1 and # 2 in Grand Slams, Williams and Court are really just 4th and 5th.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
One player being absent for injuries or breaks is natural. Weak fields at time are natural, hence why Djokovic isn't docked much even for winning half of his slams in the worst field in history. Yeah he got super lucky the field sucked so much he becomes more dominant in his mid 30s and way past his prime than he ever was in his prime, but the field in place at the time was still consistently there. The one exception is the Seles stabbing, which I can see as unnatural, although as others have said how to deal with that in a ranking is complicated. However things like Court taking a break from tennis from mid 66 to early 68 is natural and nothing more than part of the game, just like King missing some slams Court won by injuries is natural and merits no additional context. Just like Seles and others winning some slams that Graf missed by injury is natural, or Borg and Henin choosing to retire early by burnout.
The Australian Open being a bogus slam that at best 3 out of the 10 played sometimes is altogether different, and it is why Court (and Goolagong's) slam title totals are not given full credence by most people and impacts how they are ranked. Even weak fields are different than the fields not being there in the first place (and not just by natural means like injury, burn out, missing a slam to rest, whatever, but due to how the event was viewed at the time). Since the Australian Open was generally not viewed as even close to a slam calibre tournament at the time, despite being technically a slam. The worlds best men not even playing the slams until 1968 is also altogether different, and it is why Roy Emerson, technically ranking 5th in slam titles, is not even viewed as a top 20 player all time by hardly anyone. And why Pancho Gonzales who technically has only 2 slams by todays thinking is a strong GOAT candidate even today.
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
When rating players, perhaps we should look at Grand Slam tournaments on a case by case basis. Some Australian Open titles do seem bogus. At times, though so do other tournaments. If we are serious about rating players, we should be looking at how difficult they all are. In the last several years, what does a player in the women's field need to do win a major title? Basically winning a couple of matches against ordinary players, than 5 wins over good but not great players. It doesn't take a great player to win it; someone has to win it. But we are giving full credit to those winners.
What did it take to win the Australian in the 1960s and 1970s? Depends on the year. Some years it was just beating maybe 3 ordinary players and three good players. Other years though, you had to beat a great player to win it. In those years, it has to count. Beating King, Bueno, Goolagong, Evert, Navratilova or Court herself means something. It is more difficult to beat them than what Williams had to do her last several Grand Slams.
For most of the history of the women's game, it really didn't matter if several of the top 10 players didn't play. It matters which of the top 10. Realistically the tournaments usually didn't really start until the semifinals. Only a few players are serious threats. In the 1980s did it really matter that much if Shriver, Garrison, Khode Kilsch, and the Maleeva sisters played or not? They weren't serious threats to win it. What matters if a player had to beat great competition or not.
Totally agree about Pancho Gonzales and others who played before the Open era. You can't just say that they only won few majors doesn't mean they were as good as others who won more later. Some were better than others who came later and others not. Have to go by a case by case basics.
What did it take to win the Australian in the 1960s and 1970s? Depends on the year. Some years it was just beating maybe 3 ordinary players and three good players. Other years though, you had to beat a great player to win it. In those years, it has to count. Beating King, Bueno, Goolagong, Evert, Navratilova or Court herself means something. It is more difficult to beat them than what Williams had to do her last several Grand Slams.
For most of the history of the women's game, it really didn't matter if several of the top 10 players didn't play. It matters which of the top 10. Realistically the tournaments usually didn't really start until the semifinals. Only a few players are serious threats. In the 1980s did it really matter that much if Shriver, Garrison, Khode Kilsch, and the Maleeva sisters played or not? They weren't serious threats to win it. What matters if a player had to beat great competition or not.
Totally agree about Pancho Gonzales and others who played before the Open era. You can't just say that they only won few majors doesn't mean they were as good as others who won more later. Some were better than others who came later and others not. Have to go by a case by case basics.
I have given this issue thought. I suggest a two prong test. You decide how many of the top 16 players does a slam need in the draw. this suggests some depth before the semifinals. You decide how many of the top 5 or 6 players does a slam need in the draw. This suggests someone has to play great tennis to reach the semis, finals and win. You count them. You are not interested in how well they did. Presumably a top ten player who is flat, or injured or mentally unprepared is not a serious challenge, and a lower ranked player who is capable of playing inspired tennis sufficient to upset them is a challenge. Apply this objective standard to all slams and there you go!
Last edited:
Very new to the discussion here but I've been combing through the thread and wanted to pose this as one of the tough asks of the "doubles consideration" issue. Looking at just career results I think it's interesting Vera Zvonareva has gone completely undiscussed thus far. I could see this happening for a few reasons, but I'll try and make a case for why Zvonareva poses a tough ask for the current standards.
1. Singles Consistency: what Zvonareva lacked in slam results past her very peak she had serious staying power as a top-level player. She spent many weeks at #2 and had 5 separate singles appearances at the WTA Finals and I believe another as an alternate. She's won 12 titles in her singles career, more than the likes of Mugu and Osaka, including a 1000/Premier level event which Kerber cannot say.
2. Tough Era: While she initially rose in the gap period where both the Williams sisters and Henin began to wilt following injuries, tragedies, etc. she peaked during an exceptionally tough season in 2010. Her runs to the Wimbledon and US Open final in particular were impressive. At Wimbledon beating elite doubles player Hlavackova (R2), a prime Wickmayer (R3), always impressive late 2000s early 2010s Jankovic (R4), and most impressively downing Clijsters (QF), before getting a red hot Pironkova in the semis who was fresh off a win over Venus. At the US Open she beat, a healthy Lisicki (R2), decent draw Dulgheru (R3), top 10er Andrea Petkovic (R4), ball basher Kaia Kanepi (QF), and then #1 and defending finalist Wozniacki in the semis. Her other good runs in Australia and the Olympics etc. featured beating Kvitova, Safarova, Li Na, Schiavone, Ivanovic, Azarenka, Safina, Kirilenko, etc. This includes a win over Serena on grass, a ridiculous 11-0 H2H with Schiavone, and leading the H2H against her biggest contemporary rivals Caro Wozniacki, J Jankovic, and Vika Azarenka. Just to show how impressive her level was look at a premier tournament she lost, d. Safina (R1), d. Petkovic (R2), d. Kirilenko (R3), d. Schiavone (QF) losing only 2 games, d. Li Na (SF), and loses to Wozniacki in a tight match. Her time at the top of the sport was an exceptionally tough draw.
3. A Hall of Fame Worthy Doubles Career: While she is currently mysteriously absent in the AO '24 Doubles draw (where I suspect she will be a wildcard entry with the latest comeback mom Vesnina) she is at age 39 a top 10 doubles player once more. Currently, at a career-high #8, she has a doubles resume to fawn over. She is a 3-time doubles slam champion, most recently at the US Open 2020 w/ Laura Siegemund, and has made an additional 2 finals, most recently at the '23 USO. Her first slam was in 2006 alongside a pretty good doubles player in Nathalie Dechy. Her second, in 2012, was alongside Kuznetsova right before she left the tour for maternity leave (more on that later). She won multiple premier titles and made numerous semifinals as well as two mixed doubles slam wins. She is also the reigning YEC in doubles and made her first and only other YEC doubles appearance in 2005 with Likhotseva ending in the semifinals.
4. "what could have been talk": Having won a slam, and the year-end championships as a mother is an impressive feat and its easy to forget how long Zvonareva was off the tour. Nursing injuries and maternity she was virtually off the tour right after her peak. After a top 10 season in 2011 she was unranked in 2013 and didn't make an actual comeback until 2018 in doubles and 2021~ in singles. While she has mostly given up on her singles career at 38 she still posted a quarterfinal run in Ningbo last year. The difference between Zvonareva and those like Radwanska is the doubles. Yes, she never got over the finish line, but she got there more often than not and has a very solid singles resume in addition to a fantastic doubles resume. Her results at the YEC in singles are proof of how good she was against fellow top 10 players and to think what the conversation would look like if even one of those finals had gone the other way.
I don't think I can delude myself into thinking she belongs anywhere on this tier list but maybe a consideration for how we look at people's careers. If I could have my way, I think there is merit in seeing where she belongs in a 6th tier, representing the next out-gen. Also, curious to extend the conversation on what would need to be seen from Sabalenka to enter the list and what could Swiatek do to move to the next tier. Iga has a surprisingly brief but solid doubles resume, and I feel she is just a fifth slam and 20 weeks at #1 away from moving up to the next tier. Anyway if I were to be more relevant to the convo I think Mugu should sneak up to 5th, BJK deserves 1.5 tier, and don't sleep on Venus b/c her and Seles cannot be considered unequal.
1. Singles Consistency: what Zvonareva lacked in slam results past her very peak she had serious staying power as a top-level player. She spent many weeks at #2 and had 5 separate singles appearances at the WTA Finals and I believe another as an alternate. She's won 12 titles in her singles career, more than the likes of Mugu and Osaka, including a 1000/Premier level event which Kerber cannot say.
2. Tough Era: While she initially rose in the gap period where both the Williams sisters and Henin began to wilt following injuries, tragedies, etc. she peaked during an exceptionally tough season in 2010. Her runs to the Wimbledon and US Open final in particular were impressive. At Wimbledon beating elite doubles player Hlavackova (R2), a prime Wickmayer (R3), always impressive late 2000s early 2010s Jankovic (R4), and most impressively downing Clijsters (QF), before getting a red hot Pironkova in the semis who was fresh off a win over Venus. At the US Open she beat, a healthy Lisicki (R2), decent draw Dulgheru (R3), top 10er Andrea Petkovic (R4), ball basher Kaia Kanepi (QF), and then #1 and defending finalist Wozniacki in the semis. Her other good runs in Australia and the Olympics etc. featured beating Kvitova, Safarova, Li Na, Schiavone, Ivanovic, Azarenka, Safina, Kirilenko, etc. This includes a win over Serena on grass, a ridiculous 11-0 H2H with Schiavone, and leading the H2H against her biggest contemporary rivals Caro Wozniacki, J Jankovic, and Vika Azarenka. Just to show how impressive her level was look at a premier tournament she lost, d. Safina (R1), d. Petkovic (R2), d. Kirilenko (R3), d. Schiavone (QF) losing only 2 games, d. Li Na (SF), and loses to Wozniacki in a tight match. Her time at the top of the sport was an exceptionally tough draw.
3. A Hall of Fame Worthy Doubles Career: While she is currently mysteriously absent in the AO '24 Doubles draw (where I suspect she will be a wildcard entry with the latest comeback mom Vesnina) she is at age 39 a top 10 doubles player once more. Currently, at a career-high #8, she has a doubles resume to fawn over. She is a 3-time doubles slam champion, most recently at the US Open 2020 w/ Laura Siegemund, and has made an additional 2 finals, most recently at the '23 USO. Her first slam was in 2006 alongside a pretty good doubles player in Nathalie Dechy. Her second, in 2012, was alongside Kuznetsova right before she left the tour for maternity leave (more on that later). She won multiple premier titles and made numerous semifinals as well as two mixed doubles slam wins. She is also the reigning YEC in doubles and made her first and only other YEC doubles appearance in 2005 with Likhotseva ending in the semifinals.
4. "what could have been talk": Having won a slam, and the year-end championships as a mother is an impressive feat and its easy to forget how long Zvonareva was off the tour. Nursing injuries and maternity she was virtually off the tour right after her peak. After a top 10 season in 2011 she was unranked in 2013 and didn't make an actual comeback until 2018 in doubles and 2021~ in singles. While she has mostly given up on her singles career at 38 she still posted a quarterfinal run in Ningbo last year. The difference between Zvonareva and those like Radwanska is the doubles. Yes, she never got over the finish line, but she got there more often than not and has a very solid singles resume in addition to a fantastic doubles resume. Her results at the YEC in singles are proof of how good she was against fellow top 10 players and to think what the conversation would look like if even one of those finals had gone the other way.
I don't think I can delude myself into thinking she belongs anywhere on this tier list but maybe a consideration for how we look at people's careers. If I could have my way, I think there is merit in seeing where she belongs in a 6th tier, representing the next out-gen. Also, curious to extend the conversation on what would need to be seen from Sabalenka to enter the list and what could Swiatek do to move to the next tier. Iga has a surprisingly brief but solid doubles resume, and I feel she is just a fifth slam and 20 weeks at #1 away from moving up to the next tier. Anyway if I were to be more relevant to the convo I think Mugu should sneak up to 5th, BJK deserves 1.5 tier, and don't sleep on Venus b/c her and Seles cannot be considered unequal.
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Legend
You have Azarenka in tier 4 and 5. So which is it?
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Moved her up to 4 after reading some of the arguments here. Sorry forgot to delete her from Tier 5.
Bill Lobsalot
Hall of Fame
Reserve a slot in Tier 1 for Iga.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
We will see. I would classify the past year for her as dissapointing. At this point I think she would do extremely well to ever make it into Tier 2 even.
Court beat Bueno in two of her Aussie Titles, once in a quarter final, the other in a final. She also beat King in two of her other titles. one in a semi the other in a final. She did lose a final to King, soon after she returned to the tour after a year's absence. The following year she easily beat King in the final. Court still has the highest winning-% of any woman in the open era, has won more tournaments than any woman in tennis history and more combination slam titles than any other woman. Serena, whatever her competition, deserved all her slam wins as does Djokovic, Nadal and Federer in the men's game. Enough of the weak-strong era B.S, as players can only compete against the players available in their eras.
But, beyond only being able to compete against the players available, Court also benefitted from never having to win more than five matches to win the Australian Open. Indeed, the one year she played more than five matches, she lost:
1960: won five matches to take the title
1961: won five matches to take the title
1962: won five matches to take the title
1963: won five matches to take the title
1964: won four matches to take the title
1965: won five matches to take the title (Bueno retired in the third set w/an ankle injury; not sure when the issue arose)
1966: won four matches to take the title (Richey was unable to play the final)
1968: won five matches, lost to BJK in her sixth match -- the final
1969: won five matches to take the title
1970: won five matches to take the title
1971: won four matches to take the title
1973: won five matches to take the title
So, nine years of winning five matches to take the title and three years of winning four matches to take the title. The one year where Court needed to win six matches to take the title, she lost.
1968 was the year Court returned to the tour after skipping all of 67. The following year, 1969, she beat King in straight sets in the final and ended the yeat at #1. King also benefited in 71 with Courts absence, due to pregnancy. Court gave birth to her unborn child, Saint Billie Jean, killed hers.
None of that really addresses the fact that Court never had to win more than five matches to win the Australian Open and sometimes only needed to win four.
Did Court ever have to win seven matches to win a Major?
Court never made up the Draws. Draws in her era were a bit smaller because there were not as many top female players as there are today, FYI, Bjk was in the same era as Court was.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Dlt
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
So how many of those should then count in your opinion? Some posters here have the logic, well her slams had not full draws so let's just discredit all of them or simply disqualify her from her GOAT debate altogether. The draws were not Court's doing, it were different times and if we have a go at her for things where she had it easier we also need to factor in where she had it harder. Considering she didn't play under the slams being the be all and all mantra and that she retired twice at the peak of her powers should even out the smaller draws.
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
I don't think the size of the draws are that important. In women's tennis, there simply isn't that much depth. Yes, there is a chance of losing every time that a player steps onto the court, but it's pretty remote for a top player to lose early.
What matters is quality. It's much harder to beat a Beuno, Goolagong, King, Navratilova, Evert etc. than beating 7 opponents with little chance.
What matters is quality. It's much harder to beat a Beuno, Goolagong, King, Navratilova, Evert etc. than beating 7 opponents with little chance.
The argument you are adressing, presupposes that the current first Rd match in a draw of 132 and 32 seeds of is a greater risk to the top seeds than it is a benefit. I don't know that that is actually true. We'd actually have to study the end results of top players who get a bye in the first round and compare with those that do not but the other somewhat counterintuitive argument is that a top player now has a mostly risk free but competitive round to get used to the balls, the surface, the weather conditions etc and to get into the patterns for top competitive form with very little actual danger. I don't know how many times I have seen top players suggest that they perfered having mildly challenging match in competition, before the second week of play ( which this additional round increases) or felt that their 'bye' just left them a little more rusty or flat than otherwise. I think an argument can be made that fewer rounds may have negative impacts on top seeds that supercede the rare statistical 'first round loss' we all talk about.
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
I was being tongue in cheek earlier. People have no problem discounting Courts wins but want to count all of Kings and Williams.
However, I will say that it isn't BS to look at the quality of the competition. Obviously, you can only play who is front of you. However, it's silly to say that winning a tournament with a weak field is as impressive as winning one.
If we are going to do that, then we have to count every title as even. i.e. Johan Kriek's two Australian titles would force you rate him much higher than he should be.
As for Djokovic, Nadal, Federer: They are obviously great players. but if they played in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s there is no way that they would have won 20 plus GS titles.
Angrybirdstar
Professional
remember seeing posts about how this was the reasoning for removing the Challenge Round system (might have even been you? edit: it was Borgforever talking about the Dohertys)
Last edited:
It was the reasoning but it wasn't my reasoning. I am only 62! It absolutely had to be a great advantage for the challenger to play themselves into top competitive shape, and the defending champion to only be able to practice until the championship. Except that only worked if you won all those matches. There was no 'seeding' at all back then. If this was the way things worked in 1984, Chris Evert could have easily drawn Hana Mandlikova instead of some journeywoman in Rd 1, and Helena Sukova instead of some 46 year spinster in Rd 2 while Martina had bubble baths and massages, and drank brandy and waited around until the week ended. .
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I am in two minds about that. I mean yeah technically it should be noted winning only 5 (sometimes even 4) matches. On the other hand the depth in womens tennis sucks basically like always, LOL! Atleast every single year before 1998 or 1999 or something. So do the theoretical first 2 rounds of a hypothetical 7 round tournament mean squat for the big girls? Other than the extremely rare surface specialist (eg Lori McNeil on grass) anyone an ATG plays who is unseeded is just a figurehead. If this were the mens game I would 100% agree, but the womens game is completely different from the mens in terms of overall depth and competitiveness in the 20th century, despite that I am a big fan of womens tennis.
I do think the obvious about the depleted draws with so few top or well ranked players on average showing up per years is more meaningful than 4 or 5 matches vs 6 or 7 given the non existing depth of womens tennis.
I will say there is every reason to believe Court at minimum wins 8 or 9 Australian Opens even with everyone playing AND 7 matches needed each year, and still winds up with thus at worst 21 or 22 slams, which ironically would probably garner her a lot more respect than she gets currrently. Especialy when you consider that is up with Graf's padded total with the arguable asterisk of the Seles stabbing, still well up on Navratilova and Evert both, still close to Serena's total. And that is with the numerous breaks from the game to give child birth, and once to open a flower shop business too. The reasons:
1. Home country/home court advantage. Which is huge.
2. She actually played the Australian almost every year healthy, which is not true of Wimbledon, and even moreso the US Open (where she still managed to win 5) given his numerous temporary retirements/breaks which typically began mid year each time.
3. The fact she has an overwhelming head to head edge vs her two biggest rivals- Bueno and King anyway, particularly King. Even at Wimbledon where Court had noted psychological problems/underperformance issues, and is the one place King has a significantly superior record with 6 titles to only 3 for Court, Court has a leading head to head with King. Others often took Court out for King there, along with a few times she didn't play, neither which would be the case hardly ever in Australia, where obviously King will have a much harder time beating Court when they do play to boot.
Last edited:
I agree with that.
IMO women's tennis never had sufficient depth to fill 128 player grand slam draws until we were in to the 21st century, and for a period even 64 player draw sizes to be honest. Previously in the 80s and 90s, I remember plenty of (correct) talk about how 128 players draws were simply far too big on the women's side. The early round women's matches were a waste of time for the most part (unlike the men's side where there were a whole host of dangerous unseeded and lower ranked players waiting for big guns), and the tournaments usually only properly started from the latter stages. Now those latter stages could often be brilliant, and more entertaining and enjoyable than those on the men's side, but I watched plenty of early round women's matches at Wimbledon in-particular year after year, and the standard was very bad (and that was regularly mentioned with players like Navratilova and Evert often being asked about it).
So in that era, I don't put much stock if any on the overall size of the draws and the number of rounds required to win the tournaments. However what is important as you said, is the number of 'top' players in attendance - also it goes without saying that women's tennis was even (far) more dependent on its top players showing up for tournaments than men's tennis, without anything close to the same strength in depth in terms of the overall supporting cast. For that reason, it could also be argued that comparatively speaking, head to heads between the top players were also (even) more important in women's tennis than men's tennis.
Especially with the home court / country advantage as you said, I also find it extremely difficult to envisage Court not winning more Australian Championships / Open titles than the 5 she won at both Roland Garros and the US National Championships / Opens, had all the top players showed up at Kooyong year after year back then. I agree that it's highly likely that she still wins more than enough titles there to break and surpass the 20 major threshold overall.
For me, the main issue with Court's case to considered as the best of the best, has always been the fact that she 'only' won Wimbledon 3 times, despite the fact that it was by far the most important tournament / major, and despite the fact that her game was tailor-made for grass. Evert winning Wimbledon 3 times, with a game far less suited stylistically on grass, was more than good enough IMO, but not Court when Navratilova, Graf and Serena all went on to win it considerably more often than she did.
The individual Wimbledon title count was far more important then than the overall majors count. There wasn't exactly a fuss when Court overtook Wills Moody in the major count metric after beating Goolagong in the 1971 Australian Open final (Goolagong led 5-2 in the final set but was cramping). Wills Moody's individual Wimbledon title record (equalled by Navratilova in 1987 and then broken by her in 1990), was a bigger deal.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Perfect post. Exactly what I have been arguing for years here. Some people here pretend that Court was in some kind of Emerson situation where better players were not allowed to play the AO. As you said, she dominated all her peers also at the other slams and given her home court advantage (which was big during that time given the inconveniences of travel) would at the very least end up with 8 AO. Making it fair and assuming she does not retire twice she would actually end up with more than 24 if we try to adjust for modern circumstances.
Also lol at thinking some extra early rounds where Court had to beat journeywomen would have made much difference.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I do still think buscemi's point is valid, and technically holds true. And it was a good thing to point out. I just think the depth in womens tennis was too lacking for it ultimately have ,made any difference in the end.
The depleted fields that showed up in the first place are a significant point. But I think when one assesses all the factors, it is very likely Court wins many more Australian Opens than she did at any other slam regardless. Clay is a weaker surface for her than grass, and more of her rivals (Richey, Turner, Jones, some of the Germans) were stronger on clay than grass, really everyone but King and Bueno, and she still won 5. Wimbledon her psychological problems with the environment and other things are known. US Open she several times missed as this is where her numerous temporary retirements or pregnancies would take effect (one is negated by like the 72 one she played, but was just coming back from a pregnancy layoff and was not really sharp yet for), and was on her main rival (King) home turf and she still won 5 there. 11? Not likely, but much more than 5 still, and still likely having more slams than most of the other GOAT contenders, and comparable to Graf who beneffited from her biggest rival being stabbed, and near Serena who benefits from todays advanced knowledged of training, nutrition, and other factors that are allowing players to shine way into their 30s like never in history before.
I am not even neccessarily arguing Court as the GOAT, just that the Australian Open skew is skewed more in public perception of her than it should be.
I do think Gizo is right on one thing though that the two most prestigious tournaments back then were Wimbledon and the US Open, much moreso than today. So that she only won 8 there (still outstanding, but keeping in mind she is a GOAT candidate), less than her eras 2nd best player Billie Jean King who in fact has 10, is a legitimate small negative for her in discussions. I can agree with that. There are factors in that, as I mentioned her numerous mid year periods leaving the game for awhile, playing Wimbledon pregnant once, etc....but it is still a fact.
The depleted fields that showed up in the first place are a significant point. But I think when one assesses all the factors, it is very likely Court wins many more Australian Opens than she did at any other slam regardless. Clay is a weaker surface for her than grass, and more of her rivals (Richey, Turner, Jones, some of the Germans) were stronger on clay than grass, really everyone but King and Bueno, and she still won 5. Wimbledon her psychological problems with the environment and other things are known. US Open she several times missed as this is where her numerous temporary retirements or pregnancies would take effect (one is negated by like the 72 one she played, but was just coming back from a pregnancy layoff and was not really sharp yet for), and was on her main rival (King) home turf and she still won 5 there. 11? Not likely, but much more than 5 still, and still likely having more slams than most of the other GOAT contenders, and comparable to Graf who beneffited from her biggest rival being stabbed, and near Serena who benefits from todays advanced knowledged of training, nutrition, and other factors that are allowing players to shine way into their 30s like never in history before.
I am not even neccessarily arguing Court as the GOAT, just that the Australian Open skew is skewed more in public perception of her than it should be.
I do think Gizo is right on one thing though that the two most prestigious tournaments back then were Wimbledon and the US Open, much moreso than today. So that she only won 8 there (still outstanding, but keeping in mind she is a GOAT candidate), less than her eras 2nd best player Billie Jean King who in fact has 10, is a legitimate small negative for her in discussions. I can agree with that. There are factors in that, as I mentioned her numerous mid year periods leaving the game for awhile, playing Wimbledon pregnant once, etc....but it is still a fact.
Yes even away from the Australian Championships / Open, across the other 3 majors there was a very clear hierarchy of importance during when Court was active and for quite a decent stretch of time; Wimbledon > US National Championships / Open > Roland Garros. I think that hierachy still remained in both men's and women's tennis during the 80s, with the gaps definitely narrowing during the 90s.
I'd argue that the US National Championships / Open > Roland Garros gulf was surely even wider in women's tennis compared to men's as well, given that women's tennis was even more US-centric than men's tennis, and didn't have anything close to the same 'clay court culture' that men's tennis had.
Wimbledon was still clearly no. 1 ahead of the US National Championships / Open though, with a noticeable gulf in importance between those tournaments. While this is a men's example so not ideal here, McEnroe becoming the first man since Tilden to win 3 straight US Open titles was definitely a very big deal, but Borg becoming the first man since Perry to win 3 straight Wimbledon titles (if you don't count Laver's 1967 Wimbledon pro title as part of a 3 in a row sequence from 1967-1969) was a noticeably bigger deal and 'ginormous'. Even in the late 90s, Davenport commented that her 1999 Wimbledon title win felt like a bigger deal and her lead to more recognition than her 1998 US Open title win. The 00s is probably the first decade as a whole / from the start, in which I'd say it's legimate to treat all the majors as equally important to each other.
Court winning Wimbledon, effectively the World Championships, the same number of times as Evert (who as I said had a game much less suited to grass stylistically), a third as often as Navratilova, and less than half as often as Graf and Serena, is difficult for me to ignore. Then again her grand slam in 1970 is definitely an extremely big feather in her cap.
When there was no serious depth in women's tennis (understandably so given the huge barriers that it faced), the overall standard before the QF stage in majors was so generally poor anyway, and the early rounds were typically no more physically demanding for the big guns than light-hearted practice sessions, the requirement to come through 5, 6 or 7 matches to win a major doesn't seem like an especially big deal to me. What is a big deal to me though is how many of the top 5-10 players were in attendance at events / majors, definitely more 'criticial' in women's tennis than men's for quite a while given the significantly lower depth and increased 'dependancy' on big name stars.
I'd argue that the US National Championships / Open > Roland Garros gulf was surely even wider in women's tennis compared to men's as well, given that women's tennis was even more US-centric than men's tennis, and didn't have anything close to the same 'clay court culture' that men's tennis had.
Wimbledon was still clearly no. 1 ahead of the US National Championships / Open though, with a noticeable gulf in importance between those tournaments. While this is a men's example so not ideal here, McEnroe becoming the first man since Tilden to win 3 straight US Open titles was definitely a very big deal, but Borg becoming the first man since Perry to win 3 straight Wimbledon titles (if you don't count Laver's 1967 Wimbledon pro title as part of a 3 in a row sequence from 1967-1969) was a noticeably bigger deal and 'ginormous'. Even in the late 90s, Davenport commented that her 1999 Wimbledon title win felt like a bigger deal and her lead to more recognition than her 1998 US Open title win. The 00s is probably the first decade as a whole / from the start, in which I'd say it's legimate to treat all the majors as equally important to each other.
Court winning Wimbledon, effectively the World Championships, the same number of times as Evert (who as I said had a game much less suited to grass stylistically), a third as often as Navratilova, and less than half as often as Graf and Serena, is difficult for me to ignore. Then again her grand slam in 1970 is definitely an extremely big feather in her cap.
When there was no serious depth in women's tennis (understandably so given the huge barriers that it faced), the overall standard before the QF stage in majors was so generally poor anyway, and the early rounds were typically no more physically demanding for the big guns than light-hearted practice sessions, the requirement to come through 5, 6 or 7 matches to win a major doesn't seem like an especially big deal to me. What is a big deal to me though is how many of the top 5-10 players were in attendance at events / majors, definitely more 'criticial' in women's tennis than men's for quite a while given the significantly lower depth and increased 'dependancy' on big name stars.
Last edited:
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
I have read that throughout history, the US Open (US Nationals), was right there with Wimbledon. Then when Wimbledon began showing the men's final live (what a concept) in 1979, it became a bigger deal to casual fans. It became Wimbledon, then US, then French, and with the Australian a distant fourth in the late 1970s/early 1980s (As other have mentioned there were non-majors more important than Australia in some years.)
In 1983, the Australian got a boost when Wilander, Mcenroe, and Lendl all entered. It went up another notch in 1988 with the new Stadium and stronger field.
I remember ESPN covering the French Open for several hours a day in the mid 1980s. it was a big deal. Not sure when they started doing that with the Australian, but I know they were by 1988.
Agree that when there isn't much depth, it doesn't matter much if a player has to win 5,6, or 7 matches.
Really, for most of women's tennis history, players outside the top 5 were not real threats.
We really need to look at each tournament individually for that year. Were there other great players in the tournament? i.e it's a lot more important if the top 3 players are entered than if the #10-20 are.
In 1983, the Australian got a boost when Wilander, Mcenroe, and Lendl all entered. It went up another notch in 1988 with the new Stadium and stronger field.
I remember ESPN covering the French Open for several hours a day in the mid 1980s. it was a big deal. Not sure when they started doing that with the Australian, but I know they were by 1988.
Agree that when there isn't much depth, it doesn't matter much if a player has to win 5,6, or 7 matches.
Really, for most of women's tennis history, players outside the top 5 were not real threats.
We really need to look at each tournament individually for that year. Were there other great players in the tournament? i.e it's a lot more important if the top 3 players are entered than if the #10-20 are.
The way Australian grass courts play, is perfect for her ht, her weight of shot, and her athletic game. The ball bounces up higher but but it still plays fast. Perfect for her returns and passes and her serve. She's used to the dry heat, and the winds. If everybody shows up, Margaret is not going to be upset before the semis regardless, and while she will probably take a loss or two in the final two rounds to somebody in the top ten, that still leaves her with 9 slams
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
,
Yes I agree with. I think that she even beat Bueno in 60 there is telling, since at that point Bueno was clearly the higher ranked, more dominant, and better player. And she was beating Court ins slam finals other places, like 63 US Open, 64 Wimbledon, when it was now Court who was the #1 player. Yet in 1960 when she was clearly above Court, couldn't beat her when they met in Australia. That is just one indicator but I think a strong one tough Court would be in Australia for anyone. I do think she wins something like 9 of the 11 even had it been fully attended.
Yes I agree with. I think that she even beat Bueno in 60 there is telling, since at that point Bueno was clearly the higher ranked, more dominant, and better player. And she was beating Court ins slam finals other places, like 63 US Open, 64 Wimbledon, when it was now Court who was the #1 player. Yet in 1960 when she was clearly above Court, couldn't beat her when they met in Australia. That is just one indicator but I think a strong one tough Court would be in Australia for anyone. I do think she wins something like 9 of the 11 even had it been fully attended.
Similar threads
- NadalAgassi
- Former Pro Player Talk
