tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
4 Slams, 1 WTF, 6 Masters, 2 YE no 1, 76 weeks+ at no 1 in the rankings.
Is she there already?
Is she there already?
Is Iga Swiatek an ATG already?
- Thread starter tennis_pro
- Start date
Tennfan123
Legend
No
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Even for Men it should be 7-8 slams. 6 slams in old days in 8+ with great age shift.
Biotic
Legend
To be fair to everyone, 8-9 non clay slams should be a bare minimum.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Not yet imho...2 more titles will make it for me! Prefferably one of them outside RG...
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Oh yeah, absolutely.
These days it is about making money and running away, like Osaka and Barty. Iga should just retire now.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Not everyone pursues elite racket sports at extremely advanced years of their lives.
RaulRamirez
Legend
She's easily (already) a Hall of Famer, and certainly on pace -- she turns 23 around next year's RG.
I don't know where the line is for "ATG". If it's simply 6 (7?) slams, then that's the threshold she has to cross.
If it's subjective, and she retired today, then I'd say "yes".
If not mistaken, in the OE, her 4 slams has her tied for 13th; and her 76-and-growing weeks and two YE#1s has her tied for 10th. I'd say she's in ATG territory. Here's who is ahead of her in "slams":
Counting Court and BJK's OE titles (only) here is the list of those who have won more slams(and those tied) in the Open Era:
Serena - 23
Graf - 22
Evert and Navratilova -18
Court - 11
Seles - 9
BJK - 8
Goolagong, Venus and Henin - 7
Hingis and Sharapova - 5
Swiatek is tied at 4 with Mandlikova, Sanchez-Vicario, Clijsters and Osaka.
...
Without poring over numbers, I would tend to put Swiatek at the head of the four-slammers pack.
Of those with "only" 3 slams, I may put both Davenport and Barty at the same level.
This is all probably academic unless she gets injured or loses motivation.
I tend to think that she's the same general caliber of player as (perhaps) all but the Top 4 (not counting Court and King who won before the OE) and not, as yet, quite as dominant as Seles was....but let's see how her career develops.
I don't know where the line is for "ATG". If it's simply 6 (7?) slams, then that's the threshold she has to cross.
If it's subjective, and she retired today, then I'd say "yes".
If not mistaken, in the OE, her 4 slams has her tied for 13th; and her 76-and-growing weeks and two YE#1s has her tied for 10th. I'd say she's in ATG territory. Here's who is ahead of her in "slams":
Counting Court and BJK's OE titles (only) here is the list of those who have won more slams(and those tied) in the Open Era:
Serena - 23
Graf - 22
Evert and Navratilova -18
Court - 11
Seles - 9
BJK - 8
Goolagong, Venus and Henin - 7
Hingis and Sharapova - 5
Swiatek is tied at 4 with Mandlikova, Sanchez-Vicario, Clijsters and Osaka.
...
Without poring over numbers, I would tend to put Swiatek at the head of the four-slammers pack.
Of those with "only" 3 slams, I may put both Davenport and Barty at the same level.
This is all probably academic unless she gets injured or loses motivation.
I tend to think that she's the same general caliber of player as (perhaps) all but the Top 4 (not counting Court and King who won before the OE) and not, as yet, quite as dominant as Seles was....but let's see how her career develops.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Ever? Yes. She won it as a junior, right?She could win the Australian Open but Wimbledon, do you think one day she will win at the All England Club?
It would help her cause if she improves her serve, of course, but I could see her getting on a roll there one year.
Right now, though, I would put all of Rybakina, Jabeur, and possibly Sabalenka and Vondrousova (or was that a one-off?) ahead of her on grass, but with adjustments, she can do it.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
She is almost there I would say.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
Venus would have won so much more without her sister.
One big underachiever is also Davenport who only has 3, which is one less than Osaka, despite having won 48 more titles than Naomi.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Only 12 women in the entire Open Era have more slams than her. Only 28 other women have ever been #1. Only 14 other women have been YE#1. Only 11 were multi-time YE#1s.
It would be tough to place 15 players in the open era ahead of her, that's 15 players in 55 years. Feels arbitrary to say it takes being top 10 of the Open Era to be an ATG.
It would be tough to place 15 players in the open era ahead of her, that's 15 players in 55 years. Feels arbitrary to say it takes being top 10 of the Open Era to be an ATG.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Also my girl Henin never won Wimbly and neither did Seles. Venus didn’t win RG. This obsession with just one tournament must go. All of the greats have pretty much demonstrated an elite level of expertise on all surfaces
RaulRamirez
Legend
Agreed. I don't mind people having benchmarks for "ATG" status, but unless they're agreed upon, the designation is kind of nebulous, and then it feeds into the tiresome "goat" debates of how many ATGs they defeated (and at what ages, hours of the day, and did they have a balanced breakfast).
But let's say one needs to win 6 slams to be considered an ATG, does that make that player vastly (or even a little) superior to a player who (only) amassed 5, but had a superior record otherwise?
And if the standards are defined as only the Top 10 or 15 or 20 players of the OE, how often do we adjust that number as the time frame lengthens?
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Money is indeed very important
I donno how the guys who are not in the slams race find motivation to play sports, getting beaten like a drum so many times and no hope of being the best in the world must be demoralizing in an individual sport.
If you have no hope to excel and salvage pride then better to mint as much money in any possible way.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Absolutely. I think we can't base it off of being among the greatest, but it seems like a high bar to call someone an ATG only if they're among the 15 best players in the last 50 years.
Personally I'd extend that to the 20 best in the last 50 years. Might seem like a slight difference, but you include Osaka and Swiatek who feel like they were the giants of the post-Serena era.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
And preffarably both of them not being solely RG titles...better yet both being different slams...i would be more inclined to accept she as an ATG if she has like 3 RG titles, 2 USO titles and 1 AO title or something like that, than 5 RG titles and only one USO title...but chances are that with that kind of slam distribution outside of RG she would have likely won more than 6 anyway in total...
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Pretty sure that she will get there.
RaulRamirez
Legend
I struggle, still, with defining "ATG", and as a result, assuming too much about that status.
Martina Hingis - with albeit a short, young career until trying a comeback - was dominant in picking up her 5 slams. She doesn't make the cut? Sharapova only won 5, but had a career slam - not good enough?
Davenport and Barty (3 slams apiece) were special players. I get that we want to define "ATG", but I'm not sure the accuracy or value of it.
Martina Hingis - with albeit a short, young career until trying a comeback - was dominant in picking up her 5 slams. She doesn't make the cut? Sharapova only won 5, but had a career slam - not good enough?
Davenport and Barty (3 slams apiece) were special players. I get that we want to define "ATG", but I'm not sure the accuracy or value of it.
Similar threads
