Margaret Court vs Serena Williams (the definitive thread).

[NaomiKonjuhPotapova]

Obviously she's a greater player then Henin, but I always had a soft spot for that little woman. She had a lot of heart.

Henin great on clay but it's hardly wiped.
Mostly ends up in tight matches.

 

[Deleted member 735320]

The controversy is the 11 Australian opens

The 11 Australian titles are a secondary issue. The main

Fed played the best players of that time to win. In other words, barring injury the best players showed up to each and every slam.

Court did not.

Margaret made the trips to Paris, London and NYC most years to play the best. Clearly the planes run to Melbourne to take her home and the world's best could have come to play aboard those flights.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

I don't deny she received no value from weaker draws. She can't expect that more threats in the draw won't take a bite out of her toll in the course of all those dice throws. I just think the evidence suggests it won't be a large one, when she kept on beating these same women without a solid home court advantage.

See, its more than just the faster speed and its value to her serve. I actually think the higher bounce of Aussie Grass and drier conditions suited her game better than the old wet damp softer turf of Wimbledon and New York with those pancake bounces. Both King and Navratilova were much better at keeping their center of gravity low to those skidding wet balls than Margaret. Court enjoyed better leverage on her powerful forehand drive with that higher bounce but was not as disadvantaged on her backhand wing without a topspin option over there. It really helps to be able to bend as low as the bounce if you expect to be able to come under and drive through the backhand pass. Her height plus a decent bounce meant better angles for that consistent accurate slice backhand she had.

This dramatically divergent result between the soggier courts of Wimbledon, and Australia despite greater weight of competition, is not without an mirror image . Martina Navratilova won 9 Wimbledons, over twice as many as any other major! ( 2 RG, 3 Aussies , and 4 Opens) despite Wimbledon being the most consistently attended by top ten players. She also ended up with a similar head to head winning record over contemporaries like Court's .

That is pretty much how I see Margaret dominating any and all fields Down Under where a real bounce can be found for her forehand as well as more purchase for her slice backhand passes and returns . Court, more than anyone, really could use a higher bounce on a grass court for her groundies. Its one reason she did so much better on clay than her contemporaries with a similar aggressive style.

Margaret Court won five Grand Slam titles on grass at the US Open and three on grass at Wimbledon. I have already said she may well have exceeded those numbers at the Australian, by winning six or seven titles if she had played against full strength draws, but to approach double digit domination in a slam is extremely rare. Only Rafa has reached 10 titles at a slam in singles in addition to Court. Nadal is a massively dominant player on clay and won as many Monte Carlo titles as he did French. There is no indication Court was this dominant at slam level on grass, apart from at the Australian against weak fields.

Even Federer, a great grass court player with a Grand Slam singles titles span longer than Court's, only won Wimbledon eight times. The variation between grass was only a small factor. The Australian grass may have suited Court's game better than Wimbledon or US (I don't agree Wimbledon had pancake bounces as the courts have always been maintained very well, though I agree Forest Hills did have bad erratic and often low bounces at times). But this is only a lesser factor, compared to strength of the draws.

During a long career a player will lose matches, even to rivals they have an overall winning record against. Only an utterly dominant player such as Nadal on clay (a guy who in winning 11 French Open titles has only twice been taken the full distance of five sets) can hope to be as dominant. If Federer's major rivals such as Nadal and Djokovic didn't play Wimbledon, he would have reached 12 titles there. Without Sampras and Edberg in the draw, Becker would probably have won at least 8 Wimbledons. Without Nadal around, Federer would have won at least six French Opens! You take away a player's main rivals from the draw and you give that player a massive advantage. Massive. It can not be overstated.

 

[Deleted member 735320]

You are living in a dreamland. Serena would destroy Court on every surface, just like Federer would crush Laver. No one here is detached enough to think otherwise. The eras are too far apart and Serena's era is too advanced. That is not what is up for discussion. We are talking about who is overall better based on what they achieved. No one is giving Court GOAT when she won a bunch of Aussie titles with 32 and 40 player draws and when most of the top players didn't even show up. Serena won all hers in 128 player draws with all the top players present. Also, she doesn't win because she is stronger than everyone. Do you even understand tennis? She wins because she is vastly superior and her serve is the best in history.

Set up the matches but everyone uses Jack Kramer rackets. I bet you Evert, Martina, King and Court even today do far better against today's pros than one thinks. So much of today is the racket. I think if each lady picked her preferred surface she would do remarkably well and in doubles I bet that King-Court could beat most of today's doubles champs if they all use woodies and these ladies are 75 and 76 years old.

 

[ABCD]

During a long career a player will lose matches, even to rivals they have an overall winning record against. Only an utterly dominant player such as Nadal on clay (a guy who in winning 11 French Open titles has only twice been taken the full distance of five sets) can hope to be as dominant. If Federer's major rivals such as Nadal and Djokovic didn't play Wimbledon, he would have reached 12 titles there. Without Sampras and Edberg in the draw, Becker would probably have won at least 8 Wimbledons. Without Nadal around, Federer would have won at least six French Opens! You take away a player's main rivals from the draw and you give that player a massive advantage. Massive. It can not be overstated.

I am with you on this one.

 

[ABCD]

Set up the matches but everyone uses Jack Kramer rackets. I bet you Evert, Martina, King and Court even today do far better against today's pros than one thinks. So much of today is the racket. I think if each lady picked her preferred surface she would do remarkably well and in doubles I bet that King-Court could beat most of today's doubles champs if they all use woodies and these ladies are 75 and 76 years old.

It would be fair that everyone play with their preferred equipment.

 

[ABCD]

During a long career a player will lose matches, even to rivals they have an overall winning record against.

As you are someone who seems to be professionally associated with tennis (and you are here in anonymous environment so you can freely say what you think), I would like to hear your take on male GOAT discussion. How would you rank male tennis players in that regard? It would be great if you provide justification for your choices.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

As you are someone who seems to be professionally associated with tennis (and you are here in anonymous environment so you can freely say what you think), I would like to hear your take on male GOAT discussion. How would you rank male tennis players in that regard? It would be great if you provide justification for your choices.

No I'm not professionally associated with tennis. I have studied the history of tennis in great detail and am currently working on a book documenting in detail the history of mens professional tennis prior to 1968. The male GOAT discussion is quite complex. Taking into account pro majors such as Wembley Pro, US Pro and French Pro in addition to Grand Slam titles, Rosewall is the number one in terms of titles, then Federer and Laver, then Nadal and Gonzales. They are the top five. Personally my order would be 1 Laver, just a minute amount ahead of 2 Rosewall, 3 Nadal, 4 Gonzales, 5 Federer, but all are very close and any order would be justifiable. Nadal needs another couple of slams to cement his place ahead of Federer (Nadal has won most of his majors beating either Federer or Djokovic, whereas a majority though not all of Federer's were against weaker players). Djokovic currently is still a little short of majors to be in the discussion, but may soon be in the mix too.

 

[ABCD]

No I'm not professionally associated with tennis. I have studied the history of tennis in great detail and am currently working on a book documenting in detail the history of mens professional tennis prior to 1968. The male GOAT discussion is quite complex. Taking into account pro majors such as Wembley Pro, US Pro and French Pro in addition to Grand Slam titles, Rosewall is the number one in terms of titles, then Federer and Laver, then Nadal and Gonzales. They are the top five. Personally my order would be 1 Laver, just a minute amount ahead of 2 Rosewall, 3 Nadal, 4 Gonzales, 5 Federer, but all are very close and any order would be justifiable. Nadal needs another couple of slams to cement his place ahead of Federer (Nadal has won most of his majors beating either Federer or Djokovic, whereas a majority though not all of Federer's were against weaker players). Djokovic currently is still a little short of majors to be in the discussion, but may soon be in the mix too.

Thank you for your response. Best wishes.

 

[Username_]

Serena Williams is obviously the greater player. Using death threats can take you very far when you don't get penalized appropriately i.e getting banned

 

[thrust]

No I'm not professionally associated with tennis. I have studied the history of tennis in great detail and am currently working on a book documenting in detail the history of mens professional tennis prior to 1968. The male GOAT discussion is quite complex. Taking into account pro majors such as Wembley Pro, US Pro and French Pro in addition to Grand Slam titles, Rosewall is the number one in terms of titles, then Federer and Laver, then Nadal and Gonzales. They are the top five. Personally my order would be 1 Laver, just a minute amount ahead of 2 Rosewall, 3 Nadal, 4 Gonzales, 5 Federer, but all are very close and any order would be justifiable. Nadal needs another couple of slams to cement his place ahead of Federer (Nadal has won most of his majors beating either Federer or Djokovic, whereas a majority though not all of Federer's were against weaker players). Djokovic currently is still a little short of majors to be in the discussion, but may soon be in the mix too.

Excellent post, though I think I recently read that with Novak's USO victory this year, it was either the only or one of the rare times he won a slam without having to beat Nadal or Fed along the way. Laver, as great as he was a bit lucky not to have played Gonzalez before Pancho reached 35. Pancho was still great then but not at his very best. Rosewall had to deal with prime Gonzalez, Hoad, then Laver.

 

[BTURNER]

Margaret Court won five Grand Slam titles on grass at the US Open and three on grass at Wimbledon. I have already said she may well have exceeded those numbers at the Australian, by winning six or seven titles if she had played against full strength draws, but to approach double digit domination in a slam is extremely rare. Only Rafa has reached 10 titles at a slam in singles in addition to Court. Nadal is a massively dominant player on clay and won as many Monte Carlo titles as he did French. There is no indication Court was this dominant at slam level on grass, apart from at the Australian against weak fields.

Even Federer, a great grass court player with a Grand Slam singles titles span longer than Court's, only won Wimbledon eight times. The variation between grass was only a small factor. The Australian grass may have suited Court's game better than Wimbledon or US (I don't agree Wimbledon had pancake bounces as the courts have always been maintained very well, though I agree Forest Hills did have bad erratic and often low bounces at times). But this is only a lesser factor, compared to strength of the draws.

During a long career a player will lose matches, even to rivals they have an overall winning record against. Only an utterly dominant player such as Nadal on clay (a guy who in winning 11 French Open titles has only twice been taken the full distance of five sets) can hope to be as dominant. If Federer's major rivals such as Nadal and Djokovic didn't play Wimbledon, he would have reached 12 titles there. Without Sampras and Edberg in the draw, Becker would probably have won at least 8 Wimbledons. Without Nadal around, Federer would have won at least six French Opens! You take away a player's main rivals from the draw and you give that player a massive advantage. Massive. It can not be overstated.

I'ts so exceedingly rare that I found a duplicate for the pattern from the women's tour the very next generation which you ignored to derail this talking men.

"This dramatically divergent result between the soggier courts of Wimbledon, and Australia despite greater weight of competition, is not without an mirror image . Martina Navratilova won 9 Wimbledons, over twice as many as she won in any other major! ( 2 RG, 3 Aussies , and 4 Opens) despite Wimbledon being the most consistently attended by top ten players. She also ended up with a similar head to head winning record over her contemporaries as Court had over hers "

What is interesting is that you are ignoring the preexisting pattern of Court's play that already exists when she met the same players in the same tournament.

This is Court's H2H at the Australian Open over other multiple Grand Slam winners of her time:
Court leads Turner Bowerly 2-0.
Court leads Goolagong 4-0.
Court leads Bueno 2-0.
Court leads Jean-King 2-1.
Total= Court leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.

I expect that she will to continue to beat the very same people she already beat, in the very same venue and at the very same rate to wind up with around 9 Aussies, two less . You change the pattern to reduce the frequency down to 6-7, three to four less.

I guess we can split the difference to 8!

 

[Pro tennis historian]

I'ts so exceedingly rare that I found a duplicate for the pattern from the women's tour the very next generation which you ignored to derail this talking men.

"This dramatically divergent result between the soggier courts of Wimbledon, and Australia despite greater weight of competition, is not without an mirror image . Martina Navratilova won 9 Wimbledons, over twice as many as any other major! ( 2 RG, 3 Aussies , and 4 Opens) despite Wimbledon being the most consistently attended by top ten players. She also ended up with a similar head to head winning record over contemporaries like Court's "

What is interesting is that you are ignoring the preexisting pattern of Court's play that already exists when she met the same players in the same tournament.

This is Court's H2H at the Australian Open over other multiple Grand Slam winners of her time:
Court leads Turner Bowerly 2-0.
Court leads Goolagong 4-0.
Court leads Bueno 2-0.
Court leads Jean-King 2-1.
Total= Court leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.

I expect her to continue to beat the very same people she already beat, in the very same venue and at the very same rate. You change the pattern

You obviously just copied Sport's figures. As I said before, who is Jean-King and Bowerly? This makes you look a fool posting this! MOFFITT-King was Court's main rival. Court led 2-1 against her at the Australian in the few years King played. I think it possible this figure could have been replicated into a 4-2, 6-3, 7-4 scenario with Court leading, reducing her number of titles significantly. Bueno probably would have had a win over Court if Bueno had played every year. Turner-BOWREY was a two slam winner and a clay court specialist. Goolagong-Cawley wasn't a rival of Court's until Court had won 10 of her 11 titles. I have said all this to Sport, why do I need to repeat myself, try putting your listening ears on! Then Court is down to 6 Australian titles easily. And I did not derail anything talking men, I was asked a question by someone on the men and gave an answer to it (try putting your listening ears on again!) With each post you are making yourself look increasingly foolish. I am bored now. Keep arguing if you wish.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

Excellent post, though I think I recently read that with Novak's USO victory this year, it was either the only or one of the rare times he won a slam without having to beat Nadal or Fed along the way. Laver, as great as he was a bit lucky not to have played Gonzalez before Pancho reached 35. Pancho was still great then but not at his very best. Rosewall had to deal with prime Gonzalez, Hoad, then Laver.

Yes I agree. Djokovic nearly always had to contend with Nadal and Federer in winning slams. Personally I would pick peak Novak to beat anyone. If he wins three more slams he is right in the mix to be the GOAT candidate. Yes Laver had a relatively easier era than Rosewall, but he still had to beat Rosewall and later Newcombe. And Laver is still the only player to win the Open era Grand Slam. For me his superior record against Rosewall places him a minute distance ahead of Rosewall in my GOAT standings (though he didn't have a massive head-to-head domination over Rosewall, as some would suggest). I would be quite happy for a five-way dead-heat between Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Nadal and Federer. But if Federer, Nadal and/or Djokovic win more this could change.

 

[Sysyphus]

.

Are you a professional historian of tennis or a historian of professional tennis?

I think it is imperative that we clear-up this matter of ambiguity as soon as possible, lest someone eat grandma.

Thanks in advance.

 

[thrust]

You obviously just copied Sport's figures. As I said before, who is Jean-King and Bowerly? This makes you look a fool posting this! MOFFITT-King was Court's main rival. Court led 2-1 against her at the Australian in the few years King played. I think it possible this figure could have been replicated into a 4-2, 6-3, 7-4 scenario with Court leading, reducing her number of titles significantly. Bueno probably would have had a win over Court if Bueno had played every year. Turner-BOWREY was a two slam winner and a clay court specialist. Goolagong-Cawley wasn't a rival of Court's until Court had won 10 of her 11 titles. I have said all this to Sport, why do I need to repeat myself, try putting your listening ears on! Then Court is down to 6 Australian titles easily. And I did not derail anything talking men, I was asked a question by someone on the men and gave an answer to it (try putting your listening ears on again!) With each post you are making yourself look increasingly foolish. I am bored now. Keep arguing if you wish.

Court and King played two Wimbledon finals, with Court winning both. Overall, they played only 5 slam finals with Court winning 4. They never played a FO final, because King never got there until 72 when Margret was off the tour due to pregnancy. IMO, had all the top women played the Australian in the sixties, Court would have won 8 or 9 of them, at least. In 68 and 69, the US had an amateur and open championship, with most of the top playing the amateur tournament as well as the Open. Court won the amateur in 68 and 69, the Open in 69.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

Are you a professional historian of tennis or a historian of professional tennis?

I think it is imperative that we clear-up this matter of ambiguity as soon as possible, lest someone eat grandma.

Thanks in advance.

No, the id is Pro Tennis Historian, not Prof. Tennis Historian. I am a historian when it comes to the history of Pro Tennis, not a "professional". I am currently writing a book on the history of the pre-open era pro game.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

Court and King played two Wimbledon finals, with Court winning both. Overall, they played only 5 slam finals with Court winning 4. They never played a FO final, because King never got there until 72 when Margret was off the tour due to pregnancy. IMO, had all the top women played the Australian in the sixties, Court would have won 8 or 9 of them, at least. In 68 and 69, the US had an amateur and open championship, with most of the top playing the amateur tournament as well as the Open. Court won the amateur in 68 and 69, the Open in 69.

Court would have beaten everyone the majority of the time, that is not in question. But it doesn't take many losses for her number of Australian titles to get down to 6 or 7. The better the standard of competition a player has, the more likely they will lose (the better the competition, the higher the chance of not surviving a bad day or losing to a main rival who has a good day etc.). Court had a close 6-4 slam record over King. If all you have to do is win 5 matches against Aussie players (as Court often did at the Australian), the likelihood of losing vastly reduces. Court was still a great player. Just not the greatest.

 

[Sysyphus]

No, the id is Pro Tennis Historian, not Prof. Tennis Historian. I am a historian when it comes to the history of Pro Tennis, not a "professional". I am currently writing a book on the history of the pre-open era pro game.

I feel it is of import to inform you that where 'pro' is an informal short form of 'professional' – whether it is applied to tennis players or historians – prof. conversely is an abbreviation of 'professor'.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that we got to clarify this pressing matter.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

I feel it is of import to inform you that where 'pro' is an informal short form of 'professional' – whether it is applied to tennis players or historians – prof. conversely is an abbreviation of 'professor'.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that we got to clarify this pressing matter.

Yes, very true. Prof. implied some sort of title "Professor of tennis", whereas in my case its just an id. I have researched the history of mens tennis thoroughly, but I have come across a few others on the former pro player talk section with the same level of knowledge I have, and even one or two with more. But its certainly true to say my knowledge is greater than most users of the forum (no disrespect intended).

 

[TMF]

Serena would probably have 30 or more slams if 60-75% of a normal draw was so kind as to not show up to one of the slams on a repeated basis.

I disagree. Serena had her fair share of weak competition in her career. The NEXT GEN players were simply atrocious. The difference is Serena won all her titles when she was single. She had nothing weighing on your shoulders, no distraction and was able to commit/focus 100% on her career. Court was married and had kids at 30, it's extremely difficult to have a career while raising a family at the same time.

 

[clout]

This is all correct but a bit of cherry picking in Graf's favor. Williams didn't have as many years together of extreme dominance like Graf but she did have huge spurts of dominance. You leaving off Williams' dominance of 2002-2003 excludes that and it's also a much stronger field than Graf ever dominated. Williams beat her sister, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo, Henin, Clijsters and Myskina to win her titles from 2002-2003. Graf was beating Old Nav and Evert in 1988, and Zvereva, Sabatini and players alike. That's nowhere near the same.

Serena's stretch between 2002-03 was very impressive indeed but prior to 2012-15, that was pretty much her only run of dominance. Tbh, Serena's career prior to 2012 wouldn't of even made her a GOAT candidate. Serena's definitely had many spurts of domination and is one of the greatest female players ever but her dominance is sometimes a bit overrated by many. A lot of ppl say she's dominated for 2 decades straight but that's not really true. In the post Graf era, Hingis was the best player from 1997-99, Venus was the best in 2000-01, while Henin was the best from 2003-2007. Serena was great at majors between 2008-10 but I wouldn't really say she was imposingly dominant as she won very little away from slams during that span, which explains why players such as Ivanovic, Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki also got to number one at that time. So the only stretches where Serena's truly been the undisputed best player was in 2002-mid 2003, and 2012-15.

 

[CYGS]

Nice that the true female GOAT has the higher number of votes.

 

[Justice Underworld]

Serena's stretch between 2002-03 was very impressive indeed but prior to 2012-15, that was pretty much her only run of dominance. Tbh, Serena's career prior to 2012 wouldn't of even made her a GOAT candidate. Serena's definitely had many spurts of domination and is one of the greatest female players ever but her dominance is sometimes a bit overrated by many. A lot of ppl say she's dominated for 2 decades straight but that's not really true. In the post Graf era, Hingis was the best player from 1997-99, Venus was the best in 2000-01, while Henin was the best from 2003-2007. Serena was great at majors between 2008-10 but I wouldn't really say she was imposingly dominant as she won very little away from slams during that span, which explains why players such as Ivanovic, Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki also got to number one at that time. So the only stretches where Serena's truly been the undisputed best player was in 2002-mid 2003, and 2012-15.

Serena had 13 majors before 2012 so she was already top 5 all time. It's not all that important how many majors she had before 2012 when she has won 10 since. Hingis was not the best player in 1998 or 1999. She held the #1 ranking but she got slaughtered in the majors by Novotna, Seles, Davenport, Graf, Dokic and 17 year old Serena. 1997 was the only year when Hingis was dominant. Henin was definitely not the best from 2003 to 2007. I don't know where you got that from. She was losing in the 1st and 2nd rounds in majors in 2004 and 2005 and that definitely is not dominant and lost twice in Grand Slam finals to Mauresmo in 2006. There was no dominant player in 2004 and 2005, and it definitely wasn't Henin. She was only the best in 2007 since Serena was the best in 2003, and the only reason Henin won the US Open that year was because the Williamses didn't play because of injuries. Serena held 3 out of the 4 Grand Slams after Wimbledon 2009 so that is dominant. I don't care about players who got the #1 ranking like Safina for playing a bunch of meaningless tournaments. So out of a nearly 20 year career and after 23 majors Serena was only the best player in 6 of those years? Are you high?

 

[Justice Underworld]

Nice that the true female GOAT has the higher number of votes.

Then you woke up. No one outside of this forum populated by right wing emasculated fan boys actually believe Margaret Court is the greatest. No historian of the game believes it at all.

 

[thrust]

Court would have beaten everyone the majority of the time, that is not in question. But it doesn't take many losses for her number of Australian titles to get down to 6 or 7. The better the standard of competition a player has, the more likely they will lose (the better the

Serena had 13 majors before 2012 so she was already top 5 all time. It's not all that important how many majors she had before 2012 when she has won 10 since. Hingis was not the best player in 1998 or 1999. She held the #1 ranking but she got slaughtered in the majors by Novotna, Seles, Davenport, Graf, Dokic and 17 year old Serena. 1997 was the only year when Hingis was dominant. Henin was definitely not the best from 2003 to 2007. I don't know where you got that from. She was losing in the 1st and 2nd rounds in majors in 2004 and 2005 and that definitely is not dominant and lost twice in Grand Slam finals to Mauresmo in 2006. There was no dominant player in 2004 and 2005, and it definitely wasn't Henin. She was only the best in 2007 since Serena was the best in 2003, and the only reason Henin won the US Open that year was because the Williamses didn't play because of injuries. Serena held 3 out of the 4 Grand Slams after Wimbledon 2009 so that is dominant. I don't care about players who got the #1 ranking like Safina for playing a bunch of meaningless tournaments. So out of a nearly 20 year career and after 23 majors Serena was only the best player in 6 of those years? Are you high?

Dominate or not, Henin was the YE #1 in 03, 06, 07. Serena was never ranked above Justine 03-07 and if I remember correctly, when Justine retired in 08 she and Serena had the same number of slams or at least they were very close.

 

[Art Tennis]

Both Margaret Court and Steffi Graf have the CYGS, while Serena has not even reached the 4 GS finals in the same calendar year. To be honest i even rank both Martina and Chris above SW as they had a much better competition and SW has not had a decent competition since the retirement of Clijsters and especially Henin. Also Margaret, Steffi, Martina and Chris were class acts while playing.

 

[Art Tennis]

Dominate or not, Henin was the YE #1 in 03, 06, 07. Serena was never ranked above Justine 03-07 and if I remember correctly, when Justine retired in 08 she and Serena had the same number of slams or at least they were very close.

This. Henin had also more titles and already was an Olympic chanpion. And yet there's still people who says that Serena didin't benefited by the retirement of Justine...

 

[Man of steel]

Dominate or not, Henin was the YE #1 in 03, 06, 07. Serena was never ranked above Justine 03-07 and if I remember correctly, when Justine retired in 08 she and Serena had the same number of slams or at least they were very close.

She was only the year end number 1 from 03 to 07 because Serena was out with injury/unfit and unfocused for the majority of it.

People always bring up the excuse that Serena was only winning because henin retired from 08.

Well what about the fact that as soon as Serena was injured post Wimbledon 2003 and was out for close to a full year that henin proceeded to win Usopen and AO where Serena was the defending champion?

 

[Man of steel]

This. Henin had also more titles and already was an Olympic chanpion. And yet there's still people who says that Serena didin't benefited by the retirement of Justine...

Henin benefited from serena's injuries, lack of form, death of her sister and depression post Wimbledon 2003.

 

[Man of steel]

Dominate or not, Henin was the YE #1 in 03, 06, 07. Serena was never ranked above Justine 03-07 and if I remember correctly, when Justine retired in 08 she and Serena had the same number of slams or at least they were very close.

Not to mention she finished ahead of henin in 04 in the year end rankings so your point about Serena never being ranked ahead of Henin is false.

 

[Art Tennis]

Henin benefited from serena's injuries, lack of form, death of her sister and depression post Wimbledon 2003.

Well. Then we can say that Seles benefited by the nasty blackmail scandal involving Graf's father. Who definetely had a psychological impact on Steffi.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Helen Wills Moody?

96.1% of wins in slams (serena 88%, 90.1%)

 

[Man of steel]

Well. Then we can say that Seles benefited by the nasty blackmail scandal involving Graf's father. Who definetely had a psychological impact on Steffi.

Yes because dealing with a year long injury while also dealing with the murder of a close relative can definitely be equated to your father being blackmailed which somehow linked with her "bad form" that lasted for 3 years and suddenly ended when her rival was stabbed all while being fully fit and number 2 for all of those 2-3 years.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Slams attended won:

Wills: 79.2%
Court: 51.1%
Williams: 33.3%

 

[Art Tennis]

Yes because dealing with a year long injury while also dealing with the murder of a close relative can definitely be equated to your father being blackmailed which somehow linked with her "bad form" that lasted for 3 years and suddenly ended when her rival was stabbed all while being fully fit and number 2 for all of those 2-3 years.

You are delusional. Steffi was cleary in a slump those years. She was only 21-22 years old at that time. And by the way, Steffi was improving her form and was already very close to Seles at the rankings.
(Sorry for my bad english).

 

[Justice Underworld]

Dominate or not, Henin was the YE #1 in 03, 06, 07. Serena was never ranked above Justine 03-07 and if I remember correctly, when Justine retired in 08 she and Serena had the same number of slams or at least they were very close.

The relevance of this is? When Justine retired, she had 7 Slams to Serena's 8 and Serena had already held all 4 Slams in her career. Justine was getting slaughtered by Serena and Sharapova when she ran away from the game trying to preserve her records. She doesn't get any false accolades because if she had stuck around, she was going to be losing left and right. Her 2008 was already dismal compared to her 2007 because she couldn't keep up with the demands of the game. Justine had only a 5 year career of winning majors, which is nothing compared to the greats, and I don't see why she is mentioned so much because she wouldn't have stopped Serena at all from resurging and winning more majors.

 

[Art Tennis]

Slams attended won:

Wills: 79.2%
Court: 51.1%
Williams: 33.3%

What about Maureen Connolly ?

 

[Justice Underworld]

You are delusional. Steffi was cleary in a slump those years. She was only 21-22 years old at that time. And by the way, Steffi was improving her form and was already very close to Seles at the rankings.
(Sorry for my bad english).

Cut the crap. Graf wasn't in a slump. She got bested by her true rival in big matches and was relegated to the backseat for 3 years because someone had her number. The golden Slam Steffi Graf was shown up once she had some real competition instead of aging all time greats and lessers.

 

[Man of steel]

You are delusional. Steffi was cleary in a slump those years. She was only 21-22 years old at that time. And by the way, Steffi was improving her form and was already very close to Seles at the rankings.
(Sorry for my bad english).

So you give Steffi the excuse of being in a slump for 2 years from her fathers alleged blackmail but then you dismiss the notion of Serena being in the worst form of her career from post- wimby 03 - 07 and account that to Serena having competition from henin even though they never played in between (from wimby 03 to FO 07) unlike the Graf vs Seles Rivalry where they played numerous times during Grafs supposed "slump".

Now that is delusional

 

[BGod]

People who just look at Slam totals are ones who either don't play the sport at a competitive level or lazy readers.

Graff then Evert then Serena.

 

[Man of steel]

The relevance of this is? When Justine retired, she had 7 Slams to Serena's 8 and Serena had already held all 4 Slams in her career. Justine was getting slaughtered by Serena and Sharapova when she ran away from the game trying to preserve her records. She doesn't get any false accolades because if she had stuck around, she was going to be losing left and right. Her 2008 was already dismal compared to her 2007 because she couldn't keep up with the demands of the game. Justine had only a 5 year career of winning majors, which is nothing compared to the greats, and I don't see why she is mentioned so much because she wouldn't have stopped Serena at all from resurging and winning more majors.

This. The fact that Serena didn't win a single title for 2 years from AO05 to AO07 should suggest that that had nothing to do with competition. Henin didn't have any affect on her career until 2007 and that was just for 1 year were Serena was returning back to some sort of form (still nowhere close to her 2002/03 form physically or mentally).

 

[thrust]

Not to mention she finished ahead of henin in 04 in the year end rankings so your point about Serena never being ranked ahead of Henin is false.

You are correct in that Serena was ranked 7 and Henin 8 in 04. Justine had won the AO in 04 and after she beat Davenport at IW that same year, Lindsay said that Justine was definitely the best player on the tour. Soon after that, Justine was out of action for several months due to a virus.

 

[Dartagnan64]

People who just look at Slam totals are ones who either don't play the sport at a competitive level or lazy readers.

Graff then Evert then Serena.

Or don't watch the players play matches.

I'd say the real competition for greatest female player comes down to some discussion between Navritilova, Serena and Graf. I'm not going to claim a GOAT amongst those three, only that at times they were clearly dominant over their opposition to a level that you knew you were watching someone special.

On the outside looking in would be players like Seles, Henin, Evert, Court and King. But the smartest women's tennis player would have to be Hingis. I could watch her play tennis anytime just for her craftiness. If you'd have put that brain in Serena's body, there would be no doubt as to the GOAT.

 

[Man of steel]

You are correct in that Serena was ranked 7 and Henin 8 in 04. Justine had won the AO in 04 and after she beat Davenport at IW that same year, Lindsay said that Justine was definitely the best player on the tour. Soon after that, Justine was out of action for several months due to a virus.

And Serena missed AO coming into 2004 with a knee injury that required a risky surgery that could have ended her career right there and then.

Justine had the benefit of not playing either sister (especially Serena since she was the defending champion in both the US open 03 and Australian Open 2004) and had to settle for playing clijsters in both finals who was a known choker in her early career especially when facing her compatriot

 

[thrust]

And Serena missed AO coming into 2004 with a knee injury that required a risky surgery that could have ended her career right there and then.

Justine had the benefit of not playing either sister (especially Serena since she was the defending champion in both the US open 03 and Australian Open 2004) and had to settle for playing clijsters in both finals who was a known choker in her early career especially when facing her compatriot

Unfortunately, most top players have injuries or illness during their careers, so it is fair to say it all evens out in the end. Serena had a great physical advantage over Justine, in height, weight and natural power. Justine, IMO, over extended her body in order to compete against: Serena, Venus, Davenport and Kim. IMO, Justine got the most out of her physical abilities, winning 7 slams over a 5 year period of time. Davenport won 3, Kim-4. Venus only won 7 over a near 20 year career. There is little doubt that peak-peak, Serena was superior to Justine on fast surfaces, Justine had the advantage on clay.

 

[Man of steel]

Unfortunately, most top players have injuries or illness during their careers, so it is fair to say it all evens out in the end. Serena had a great physical advantage over Justine, in height, weight and natural power. Justine, IMO, over extended her body in order to compete against: Serena, Venus, Davenport and Kim. IMO, Justine got the most out of her physical abilities, winning 7 slams over a 5 year period of time. Davenport won 3, Kim-4. Venus only won 7 over a near 20 year career. There is little doubt that peak-peak, Serena was superior to Justine on fast surfaces, Justine had the advantage on clay.

Ilnesses and injuries don't even out during careers. That's the most BS statement that I keep hearing ever.
Some players have more injuries and severe illnesses than others and yet in despite of that have better careers than other players.

 

[Art Tennis]

Cut the crap. Graf wasn't in a slump. She got bested by her true rival in big matches and was relegated to the backseat for 3 years because someone had her number. The golden Slam Steffi Graf was shown up once she had some real competition instead of aging all time greats and lessers.

Lol Graf always dominated Seles. Both before and after the stabbing.

 

[TMF]

Serena fans making excuses for her incompetent to stay healthy, stay in form, injury free, having personal problems is getting nausea.

Every pro athletes have problems, and it's their responsibility resolve their issues. Challenges is not only what they can do with the racket on court, but to take care of their body, handle personal problems off court. When the going gets tough, the tough get going! If Serena is an ATG then she should be able to handle all adversities, otherwise she doesn't have the strength/fortitude.

 

[maleyoyo]

Serena fans making excuses for her incompetent to stay healthy, stay in form, injury free, having personal problems is getting nausea.

Every pro athletes have problems, and it's their responsibility resolve their issues. Challenges is not only what they can do with the racket on court, but to take care of their body, handle personal problems off court. When the going gets tough, the tough get going! If Serena is an ATG then she should be able to handle all adversities, otherwise she doesn't have the strength/fortitude.

But she's a black woman with a daughter. All common sense and logic do not apply. She's in a league of her own. Any criticism shall be deemed political, sexist, or racist.
Just play along ...will you?