Most Overrated WTA Player On This Board

[TMF]

Serena is praise so much on this board and many of her fans just ignore the fact that everything she's done are still PALE in comparison with other greats. She is good, but we need to keep it in perspective here. Some of the major stats she doesn't even own in her era. Here are the stats that Serena look completely overshadowed by former greats. In fact, some of the list below Serena didn't even make the top ten!

Most GS titles
player total
1 Steffi Graf 22
2 Martina Navratilova 18
2 Chris Evert 18
4 Serena Williams 12
5 Margaret Court 11
6 Monica Seles 9
7 Billie Jean King 8
8 Justine Henin 7
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 7
8 Venus Williams 7

Most GS finals
Rank   Name   Total  
1 Chris Evert 34 (18)
2 Martina Navrátilová 32 (18)
3 Steffi Graf 31 (22)
4 Evonne Goolagong 18 (7)
5 Serena Williams 15 (12)
6 Venus Williams 14 (7)
7 Monica Seles 13 (9)
8 Margaret Court 12 (11)
8 Martina Hingis 12 (5)
8 Billie Jean Moffitt 12 (8)

Most weeks at #1
Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Chris Evert 260
4 Martina Hingis 209
5 Monica Seles 178
6 Justine Henin * 117
7 Lindsay Davenport 98
8 Serena Williams * 93
9 Amélie Mauresmo 39
10 Dinara Safina * 26

Consecutive weeks at #1
1 Steffi Graf (1) 186
2 Martina Navratilova (1) 156
3 Chris Evert (1) 113
4 Steffi Graf (2) 94
5 Monica Seles (1) 91
6 Martina Navratilova (2) 90
7 Steffi Graf (3) 87
8 Martina Hingis (1) 80
9 Chris Evert (2) 76
10 Martina Hingis (2) 73

Year end No. 1 players
player year
Steffi Graf 8
Martina Navratilova 7
Chris Evert 5
Lindsay Davenport 4
Justine Henin 3
Martina Hingis
Monica Seles
Serena Williams 2
Jelena Janković 1

All surface single winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Margaret Court 593 56 91.37
2 Chris Evert 1309 146 89.97
3 Steffi Graf 902 115 88.69
4 Martina Navratilova 1442 219 86.82
5 Monica Seles 595 122 82.98
6 Serena Williams*[1] 462 98 82.5
7 Justine Henin* 503 109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695 155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704 165 81.01

Clay court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Chris Evert 316 20 94.05
2 Steffi Graf 273 30 90.1
3 Justine Henin* 122 19 86.52
4 Monica Seles 142 25 85.03
5 Martina Hingis 109 25 81.34
6 Martina Navratilova 202 47 81.12
7 Gabriela Sabatini 196 49 80
8 Venus Williams* 127 35 78.4
9 Lindsay Davenport 120 35 77.42
10 Conchita Martinez 294 88 76.96

Hard court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Steffi Graf 335 36 90.3
2 Chris Evert 304 37 89.15
3 Martina Navratilova 340 48 87.63
4 Monica Seles 311 59 84.05
5 Serena Williams* 294 57 83.76
6 Justine Henin* 243 53 82.09
7 Kim Clijsters* 256 56 82.05
8 Maria Sharapova* 197 45 81.01
9 Venus Williams* 320 76 80.81
10 Lindsay Davenport 472 115 80.41

Grass court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Martina Navratilova 305 39 88.66
2 Chris Evert 184 25 88.04
3 Venus Williams* 68 10 87.18
4 Serena Williams* 52 8 86.67
5 Steffi Graf 85 15 85
6 Maria Sharapova* 52 10 83.87
7 Justine Henin* 45 10 81.82
8 Jana Novotna 79 21 79
9 Kim Clijsters* 40 11 78.43
10 Tracy Austin 43 12 78.18

Carpet court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Martina Navratilova 516 58 89.9
2 Steffi Graf 189 23 89.2
3 Chris Evert 209 39 84.3
4 Serena Williams* 34 7 82.93
5 Martina Hingis 97 23 80.83
6 Kim Clijsters* 50 13 79.37
= Monica Seles 98 26 79.03
8 Lindsay Davenport 93 27 77.5
9 Tracy Austin 85 25 77.27
10 Venus Williams* 50 17 74.63

Most singles matches won
Player Wins
1 Martina Navratilova 1442
2 Chris Evert 1309
3 Steffi Graf 902
4 Virginia Wade 839
5 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 759
6 Lindsay Davenport 753
7 Conchita Martínez 739
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley[5] 704
9 Billie Jean King 695
10 Gabriela Sabatini 632

Most consecutive singles titles
1. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
2. 12 - Margaret Court (1972-1973)
3. 11 - Steffi Graf (1989-1990)
4. 10 - Chris Evert (1974)
5. 9 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
5. 9 - Margaret Court (1970)
7. 8 - Steffi Graf (1988)
7. 8 - Martina Navratilova (1983)

Best annual singles winning percentage
1 Martina Navratilova 98.9
2 Steffi Graf 97.7
3 Martina Navratilova 97.5
4 Steffi Graf 97.4
5 Martina Navratilova 96.8
6 Martina Navratilova 96.7
7 Steffi Graf 96
8 Margaret Court 95.3
9 Chris Evert 94.9
10 Margaret Court 94.8

 

[TMF]

Continue....

Most consecutive years winning at least one singles title
1. 21 - Martina Navratilova (1974-1994)
2. 18 - Chris Evert (1971-1988)
3. 14 - Steffi Graf (1986-1999)
4. 11 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970-1980)
4. 11 - Virginia Wade (1968-1978)
6. 9 - Sandra Cecchini (1984-1992)
6. 9 - Margaret Court (1968-1976)
6. 9 - Lindsay Davenport (1993-2001)
6. 9 - Conchita Martinez (1988-1996)
6. 9 - Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (1988-1996)

Most singles titles won in a year
1. 21 - Margaret Court (1970)
2. 18 - Margaret Court (1969, 1973)
3. 17 - Billie Jean King (1971)
4. 16 - Chris Evert (1974, 1975)
4. 16 - Martina Navratilova (1983)
6. 15 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970)
6. 15 - Martina Navratilova (1982)
8. 14 - Margaret Court (1968)
8. 14 - Steffi Graf (1989)
8. 14 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
11. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
12. 12 - Chris Evert (1973, 1976)
12. 12 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971)
12. 12 - Martina Navratilova (1985)
15. 11 - Tracy Austin (1980)
15. 11 - Chris Evert (1977)
15. 11 - Steffi Graf (1987, 1988)
15. 11 - Martina Navratilova (1978, 1979)

 

[JeMar]

And here I was thinking this thread would be about Ivanovic.

 

[davey25]

And here I was thinking this thread would be about Ivanovic.

Any TMF started thread is sure to be either another Federer lovefest or Serena bashfest. They are the only 2 possible options. He cares about nothing else that is not in someway related to those 2 topics.

 

[plum556]

I appreciate you taking the time to gather these stats, although I think the first stat carries a hell of a lot more weight than the others. The last 5 stats don't include any active tennis players at all,unless you want to include Lindsay Davenport who is now in question. You can deduce whatever you like from that but I'm sure people will have a lot of different opinions where taht is concerned. Imo Serena has just as many, if not more haters than she has fans on this particular board.

Now don't get your panties in a bunch.......I'm not trying to discredit any of your opinions. Everyone has a right to make a reasonble argument to support their views. After reading some of your posts as of late, I have come to the conclusion that you may have really convinced yourself that you can be objective where Serena is concerned.

 

[Serendipitous]

And here I was thinking this thread would be about Federer.

Sadly, no.....

 

[SLD76]

I dont recall anyone here every claiming Serena was the best women's player evah.

Best of her generation though...no doubt.

 

[plum556]

I dont recall anyone here every claiming Serena was the best women's player evah.

Best of her generation though...no doubt.

I agree,where is all this praise? Maybe I missed something somewhere, I see it as being the exact opposite.

 

[soyizgood]

I dont recall anyone here every claiming Serena was the best women's player evah.

Best of her generation though...no doubt.

Cuddles26 comes to mind

 

[Arafel]

Nice, except you have the first stat wrong. Court has 24 GS titles, not 11.

 

[soyizgood]

Nice, except you have the first stat wrong. Court has 24 GS titles, not 11.

Court has 11 slams in the open era.

 

[AndrewD]

Court has 11 slams in the open era.

Not recognising the other 13 smacks of bias, That said, none of the stats the OP put up are of any value at all.

 

[tikkimonkey]

But her career isn't over yet!

 

[Rhino]

Serena, hands down.

 

[Ripper014]

I have to agree with TMF, I have always thought she was overrated by the media and members of this board. The numbers do not lie... and you can say that she is the best of her generation... but I am not so sure about that either. However if she is the best of her generation... and admittedly this generation has been rather weak, she cannot even dominate her generation based on the numbers.

Saying she saves herself only for the majors is a weak excuse for not being able to compete day and day out like so many of the best players ever to play the game. I don't know anyone that goes out on a tennis court to lose.

Mine is only one opinion on this board... and you can agree or disagree the choice is yours.

 

[raiden031]

I agree,where is all this praise? Maybe I missed something somewhere, I see it as being the exact opposite.

Maybe not on the board, but ESPN is obsessed with broadcasting her matches.

 

[diggler]

As much as I dislike Serena, I have to acknowledge her great achievements.

She has achieved so mcuh despite being overweight and playing part time.

Imagine if she bothered. Imagine if she bothered to enter every doubles.

 

[forthegame]

Silly. You don't have to live here to know that no one regards Serena as GOAT. Far from it. Routinely underrated and hated IMHO.

Thanks for adding another Serena bashing thread.... :roll:

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Any TMF started thread is sure to be either another Federer lovefest or Serena bashfest. They are the only 2 possible options. He cares about nothing else that is not in someway related to those 2 topics.

Quoted for truth. He/she/it praises the likes of Sharapova and Ivanovic, who will never mean much to tennis as a sport, or to sports history in general, yet in his/her/its desperate, hate-filled zeal, actually thinks this thread will "end" the proven success of SW as one of the modern greats of the sport. He/she/it is pissed because his packaged-right-off-of-the-shelf favorites Sharapova and Ivanovic are not held up as God as he/she/it would like (seen in his/her/its incessant posts in threads having nothing to do with either player).

Amusing....in a case study sense.....

Oh and if the OP ever desired accuracy about the perception of SW, he/she/it should have performed a little search of the TT boards, where the vast majority of theads and/or posts about SW are negative, trolling exercises and overtly racist in nature. Of course, he/she/it could not do that. Nope...that would mean being objective and risk rendering his/her/its claims as hollow...being motivated by other thoughts....

Again, an amusing case study.

 

[fedhingis515]

Le what? Serena is probably the most hated and unappreciated player on TW. I want to say Monica Seles, but I'm not quite sure.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Le what? Serena is probably the most hated and unappreciated player on TW.

Yes, she is, and the thread and post history proves it--and the utterly laughable nature of the OP's premise.

 

[TMF]

Le what? Serena is probably the most hated and unappreciated player on TW. I want to say Monica Seles, but I'm not quite sure.

Serena being dislike is b/c of her bad behavior including the incidence at the USO 09. You are clearly confused b/c this thread has nothing to do with her troubles with the wta and her peers. It's about her achievements(which I'm impressed), but as I've stated in my 1st post, Serena is still so far behind from other greats that at best she can only be a Tier 2 great. That's pretty generous consider she not even dominating in her era and even some of her stats lagged behind her peers, not to mention she played much more tennis than them. The reason why this thread was created is to make a clear point that Serena is not among the greatest. Posters in here like Davey25 claimed she's among all time great is ludricrous and totally disrespect the great Graf or Martina. Of course Serena can change people's opinion(including mine) in the future. If she can do what Federer did by surpassing other great players(GS count, setting all kind of records), then she deserve the same recognition as Roger. Federer has changed many people's view about his goat status after 2009(except some of the haters), can Serena do it too? That's remain to be seen but I don' think she can do it.

 

[fedhingis515]

Serena being dislike is b/c of her bad behavior including the incidence at the USO 09. You are clearly confused b/c this thread has nothing to do with her troubles with the wta and her peers. It's about her achievements(which I'm impressed), but as I've stated in my 1st post, Serena is still so far behind from other greats that at best she can only be a Tier 2 great. That's pretty generous consider she not even dominating in her era and even some of her stats lagged behind her peers, not to mention she played much more tennis than them. The reason why this thread was created is to make a clear point that Serena is not among the greatest. Posters in here like Davey25 claimed she's among all time great is ludricrous and totally disrespect the great Graf or Martina. Of course Serena can change people's opinion(including mine) in the future. If she can do what Federer did by surpassing other great players(GS count, setting all kind of records), then she deserve the same recognition as Roger. Federer has changed many people's view about his goat status after 2009(except some of the haters), can Serena do it too? That's remain to be seen but I don' think she can do it.

I am not confused. Serena's achievements are undermined as a result of her being disliked on these forums. Granted, she's no Federer, but she's still the greatest of her generation.

 

[FedSampras1]

serena is just a lucky fat ass juiced cow who has played in the weakest era

 

[SLD76]

It wasnt weak in 99-2003

And she was still winning then.


People act like Serena is Iva Majoli or Myskyna.

 

[soyizgood]

serena is just a lucky fat ass juiced cow who has played in the weakest era

I posted on another thread, the famous Sampras' peers >>> Federer's peers, that Serena's age peers have a combined 24 slams.

Henin 7
Venus 7
Hingis 5
Mauresmo 2
Clijsters 2
Myskina 1

If her era is weak, then Federer's is MUCH weaker as none of his age peers have more than 2 slams. Even if I threw in Nadal it makes Federer's immediate age peers more of a joke as Nadal's had a field day with all of them except for Davydenko.

 

[SLD76]

Its 2 things Soyz: Serena's era was not week and 2) no one player was able to dominate the tour except maybe serena from 2003-2005

2) You left off Davenport, who is a generation ahead of Serena but played into 2006 I think?

 

[TMF]

I am not confused. Serena's achievements are undermined as a result of her being disliked on these forums. Granted, she's no Federer, but she's still the greatest of her generation.

So if Serena behave like a sweet little girl, members wouldn't dislike her and they would accepted her as being among the greatest? Come on! Being clean or having tainted images DOES NOT take anything away from what a player have done throughout their career(unless she uses PED). Otherwise, we would start striping Mac/connors credibilties away for being a bad boy!

 

[thalivest]

I posted on another thread, the famous Sampras' peers >>> Federer's peers, that Serena's age peers have a combined 24 slams.

Henin 7
Venus 7
Hingis 5
Mauresmo 2
Clijsters 2
Myskina 1

If her era is weak, then Federer's is MUCH weaker as none of his age peers have more than 2 slams. Even if I threw in Nadal it makes Federer's immediate age peers more of a joke as Nadal's had a field day with all of them except for Davydenko.

Hingis is not a Serena peer. Hingis won her last slam before Serena won her 1st, and won her last slam over 3 years before Serena won her 2nd.

Henin is barely a Serena peer as well. Each won almost all their slams when the other was absent, retired, or not much of a factor, apart from Henin in 2007, and both players in mid 2003. Serena's Australian Open title was her first slam with Henin even in the field since Wimbledon 2003. Either way Serena does not get credit for having Henin as a real rival when she won her first 4 slams before Henin won her 1st, and won 5 of her last 6 with Henin not even in the draw either retired or absent.

 

[SLD76]

But TMF the fact remains...who here has ever said she was the greatest ladies champion of all time???? You are fighting a non-existant battle.


ETA: regardless of who was or wasnt playing well at the same time, its ludicrous to clain Henin was not a Serena peer when they clearly were of the same generation.


Generation before SW(the late stages of their career overlapped with her ascendency): Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Pierce

SW generation: Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Myskyna, Schnyder,

Players after SW generation: Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Sharapova,

 

[TMF]

If her era is weak, then Federer's is MUCH weaker as none of his age peers have more than 2 slams. Even if I threw in Nadal it makes Federer's immediate age peers more of a joke as Nadal's had a field day with all of them except for Davydenko.

Sure! Having the two great players(Justine, Kim) retire from the WTA makes Serena era >>>>> Fed's era. Hold on to that thought if that helps you sleep well at night.

 

[thalivest]

Its 2 things Soyz: Serena's era was not week and 2) no one player was able to dominate the tour except maybe serena from 2003-2005

2) You left off Davenport, who is a generation ahead of Serena but played into 2006 I think?

The only players to dominate were Serena 2002-mid 2003, Henin mid 2003-early 2004 and all of 2007.

 

[soyizgood]

Its 2 things Soyz: Serena's era was not week and 2) no one player was able to dominate the tour except maybe serena from 2003-2005

2) You left off Davenport, who is a generation ahead of Serena but played into 2006 I think?

Davenport is 5 years older than Serena. I defined peers as +/- 2 years. I could extend it to +/-3. That only makes Serena's era look stronger while doing little to nothing for Federer. Davenport was pretty much done after she lost Wimby 2005 to Venus. Still got year-end #1, but her game took a dive with injuries and then she got pregnant.

Serena was not dominating the tour in 2004-5 as she only won 1 slam in that period. In 2002 and most of 2003 Serena dominated. Even in 2003, her and Henin split the majors while Clijsters almost finished as year-end #1 despite not winning any majors. Henin could have dominated 2004 (AO and Olympic Gold) but she had mono and that helped make for the year being a mess with 3 Russians (and Henin) taking slams, no consistent player among the slam winners, and for Davenport being year-end #1.

 

[thalivest]

Basing peers just on age is pointless. Players develop at different rates. Federer and Nadal are much more peers than say Serena and Hingis. Hingis was an early bloomer who was washed up and retired by age 21, and won all her slams at 18 or younger.

 

[SLD76]

Its not pointless. The definition of peers is based on the age group you are definining. If I earn 350K plus a year( usually high level executive salary) as a 22 yr old, that doesnt suddenly make me a 40 yr old.


Hence, Roddick is part of Federer's peer group regardless of the fact that Roddick did more as a younger player when he and Fed were both 18-20, and Fed did more after the age of 21. And hence Henin is part of Serena's peer group.

ETA:

Serena was not dominating the tour in 2004-5 as she only won 1 slam in that period. In 2002 and most of 2003 Serena dominated. Even in 2003, her and Henin split the majors while Clijsters almost finished as year-end #1 despite not winning any majors. Henin could have dominated 2004 (AO and Olympic Gold) but she had mono and that helped make for the year being a mess with 3 Russians (and Henin) taking slams, no consistent player among the slam winners, and for Davenport being year-end #1.

My bad, got my years mixed up. And I remember now the flack Kim got for being #1 and not winning a slam, and I think it was at this time in her career she had yet to win a slam.

 

[soyizgood]

Hingis is not a Serena peer. Hingis won her last slam before Serena won her 1st, and won her last slam over 3 years before Serena won her 2nd.

Henin is barely a Serena peer as well. Each won almost all their slams when the other was absent, retired, or not much of a factor, apart from Henin in 2007, and both players in mid 2003. Serena's Australian Open title was her first slam with Henin even in the field since Wimbledon 2003. Either way Serena does not get credit for having Henin as a real rival when she won her first 4 slams before Henin won her 1st, and won 5 of her last 6 with Henin not even in the draw either retired or absent.

Serena and Hingis played each other 13 times and the H2H was basically even. Hingis was definitely a peer and only 1 year apart in age. Heck Hingis was still winning tier-1s and won 16 of them which is second to Graf's 17.

Serena and Henin took turns dominating when the other was injured/retired/out of shape. Once again they're only a year apart. 14 meetings with Serena leading 8-6. It's strange that this AO was the 1st time these two played each other in a slam final, but this has been a fierce rivalry with its share of drama.

 

[TMF]

But TMF the fact remains...who here has ever said she was the greatest ladies champion of all time???? You are fighting a non-existant battle.

You need to read more. There ARE posters in her regard her as ‘among all time great’.

ETA: regardless of who was or wasnt playing well at the same time, its ludicrous to clain Henin was not a Serena peer when they clearly were of the same generation.

Never said that.

 

[SLD76]

lol@ TMF. I was responding to someone else, I wasn't claiming you said Serena and Henin werent peers. No worries

 

[TMF]

lol@ TMF. I was responding to someone else, I wasn't claiming you said Serena and Henin werent peers. No worries

Just a misunderstanding. No worries.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

You need to read more. There ARE posters in her regard her as ‘among all time great’.

You need comprehension courses, as "the greatest of all time" (which you quoted) is not your reference to others saying, "...among all time greats." One says she is the best of all who ever existed in the sport, while the other says she is (drum roll, please) among the greatest--which is not an uncommon belief, whether you like it or not. Clear, easy to understand difference...well, for some.

Aside from a couple of members giving her the "all time" nod, some were doing it because they knew just how easy it was to bait the hate-mongering on this board into another pitchfork and torch session...and it worked like a charm.

 

[Markov]

Again I notice guys saying "Federer hasn't lost enough to his peers for them to be as good as someone else's peers. The peers of player A would beat the peers of player B in a match, because player A's peers have beaten him/her more often than player B has been beaten by his/her peers. It doesn't matter that player B is clearly a better player than player A.". I can't see how this makes any sense at all. Well, maybe it's just me.

Anyway, I think Marcelo Rios is kind of overrated, as are some other guys from the 90s. I don't think that nearly any player is overrated, though. Almost all of the players praised on this board are great champions. They just seem overrated because so many other guys are underrated.

 

[thalivest]

Serena and Hingis played each other 13 times and the H2H was basically even. Hingis was definitely a peer and only 1 year apart in age. Heck Hingis was still winning tier-1s and won 16 of them which is second to Graf's 17.

Serena and Henin took turns dominating when the other was injured/retired/out of shape. Once again they're only a year apart. 14 meetings with Serena leading 8-6. It's strange that this AO was the 1st time these two played each other in a slam final, but this has been a fierce rivalry with its share of drama.

If those are rivalries than Federer and Nadal is a much bigger rivalry since they have played 20 times and in 6 slam finals. Serena has played Henin and Hingis in 1 slam final each, Hingis in 1 other semi, Henin in 2 other semis. Some amazing rivalries those are, LOL!

Determining things by age is a braindead philosophy. As I said players mature at different ages and follow different careers paths. Hingis's career path was to be great as a teenager and worthless thereafter. Nadal looks like he will be an earlier starter and finishers but given that he is 5 years younger than Federer that actually helps balances things out.

Serena did not have more competition based on the her and the fields allowance of clowns such as Kuznetsova, Myskina, Ivanovic, and other mediocrities to win slams. That just makes them less great, in the era of Graf or Navratilova such players would not be allowed to come close to winning a slam.

 

[TMF]

You need comprehension courses, as "the greatest of all time" (which you quoted) is not your reference to others saying, "...among all time greats." One says she is the best of all who ever existed in the sport, while the other says she is (drum roll, please) among the greatest--which is not an uncommon belief, whether you like it or not. Clear, easy to understand difference...well, for some.

Aside from a couple of members giving her the "all time" nod, some were doing it because they knew just how easy it was to bait the hate-mongering on this board into another pitchfork and torch session...and it worked like a charm.

I don't care how much you're trying to defend Serena. The fact is she's overrated simply b/c her fans ignore her achievements are well short than the other greats. She is not the ‘among all time great’ as posters have claimed.

Serena is praise so much on this board and many of her fans just ignore the fact that everything she's done are still PALE in comparison with other greats. She is good, but we need to keep it in perspective here. Some of the major stats she doesn't even own in her era. Here are the stats that Serena look completely overshadowed by former greats. In fact, some of the list below Serena didn't even make the top ten!

Most GS titles
player total
1 Steffi Graf 22
2 Martina Navratilova 18
2 Chris Evert 18
4 Serena Williams 12
5 Margaret Court 11
6 Monica Seles 9
7 Billie Jean King 8
8 Justine Henin 7
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 7
8 Venus Williams 7

Most GS finals
Rank Name Total
1 Chris Evert 34 (18)
2 Martina Navrátilová 32 (18)
3 Steffi Graf 31 (22)
4 Evonne Goolagong 18 (7)
5 Serena Williams 15 (12)
6 Venus Williams 14 (7)
7 Monica Seles 13 (9)
8 Margaret Court 12 (11)
8 Martina Hingis 12 (5)
8 Billie Jean Moffitt 12 (8)

Most weeks at #1
Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Chris Evert 260
4 Martina Hingis 209
5 Monica Seles 178
6 Justine Henin * 117
7 Lindsay Davenport 98
8 Serena Williams * 93
9 Amélie Mauresmo 39
10 Dinara Safina * 26

Consecutive weeks at #1
1 Steffi Graf (1) 186
2 Martina Navratilova (1) 156
3 Chris Evert (1) 113
4 Steffi Graf (2) 94
5 Monica Seles (1) 91
6 Martina Navratilova (2) 90
7 Steffi Graf (3) 87
8 Martina Hingis (1) 80
9 Chris Evert (2) 76
10 Martina Hingis (2) 73

Year end No. 1 players
player year
Steffi Graf 8
Martina Navratilova 7
Chris Evert 5
Lindsay Davenport 4
Justine Henin 3
Martina Hingis
Monica Seles
Serena Williams 2
Jelena Janković 1

All surface single winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Margaret Court 593 56 91.37
2 Chris Evert 1309 146 89.97
3 Steffi Graf 902 115 88.69
4 Martina Navratilova 1442 219 86.82
5 Monica Seles 595 122 82.98
6 Serena Williams*[1] 462 98 82.5
7 Justine Henin* 503 109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695 155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704 165 81.01

Clay court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Chris Evert 316 20 94.05
2 Steffi Graf 273 30 90.1
3 Justine Henin* 122 19 86.52
4 Monica Seles 142 25 85.03
5 Martina Hingis 109 25 81.34
6 Martina Navratilova 202 47 81.12
7 Gabriela Sabatini 196 49 80
8 Venus Williams* 127 35 78.4
9 Lindsay Davenport 120 35 77.42
10 Conchita Martinez 294 88 76.96

Hard court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Steffi Graf 335 36 90.3
2 Chris Evert 304 37 89.15
3 Martina Navratilova 340 48 87.63
4 Monica Seles 311 59 84.05
5 Serena Williams* 294 57 83.76
6 Justine Henin* 243 53 82.09
7 Kim Clijsters* 256 56 82.05
8 Maria Sharapova* 197 45 81.01
9 Venus Williams* 320 76 80.81
10 Lindsay Davenport 472 115 80.41

Grass court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Martina Navratilova 305 39 88.66
2 Chris Evert 184 25 88.04
3 Venus Williams* 68 10 87.18
4 Serena Williams* 52 8 86.67
5 Steffi Graf 85 15 85
6 Maria Sharapova* 52 10 83.87
7 Justine Henin* 45 10 81.82
8 Jana Novotna 79 21 79
9 Kim Clijsters* 40 11 78.43
10 Tracy Austin 43 12 78.18

Carpet court singles career winning percentage
Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
1 Martina Navratilova 516 58 89.9
2 Steffi Graf 189 23 89.2
3 Chris Evert 209 39 84.3
4 Serena Williams* 34 7 82.93
5 Martina Hingis 97 23 80.83
6 Kim Clijsters* 50 13 79.37
= Monica Seles 98 26 79.03
8 Lindsay Davenport 93 27 77.5
9 Tracy Austin 85 25 77.27
10 Venus Williams* 50 17 74.63

Most singles matches won
Player Wins
1 Martina Navratilova 1442
2 Chris Evert 1309
3 Steffi Graf 902
4 Virginia Wade 839
5 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 759
6 Lindsay Davenport 753
7 Conchita Martínez 739
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley[5] 704
9 Billie Jean King 695
10 Gabriela Sabatini 632

Most consecutive singles titles
1. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
2. 12 - Margaret Court (1972-1973)
3. 11 - Steffi Graf (1989-1990)
4. 10 - Chris Evert (1974)
5. 9 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
5. 9 - Margaret Court (1970)
7. 8 - Steffi Graf (1988)
7. 8 - Martina Navratilova (1983)

Best annual singles winning percentage
1 Martina Navratilova 98.9
2 Steffi Graf 97.7
3 Martina Navratilova 97.5
4 Steffi Graf 97.4
5 Martina Navratilova 96.8
6 Martina Navratilova 96.7
7 Steffi Graf 96
8 Margaret Court 95.3
9 Chris Evert 94.9
10 Margaret Court 94.8

 

[davey25]

All TMF is doing is proving that Serena IS one of the greatest players of all time. Those lists that he went to so much needless effort to prove show Serena top 10 on every one and top 5 in most.

 

[forthegame]

Stop posting long bits of quoted text, aaaarrrrgggghhh!!!!!!!

TW servers are not infinite resources!

 

[Joe Pike]

All TMF is doing is proving that Serena IS one of the greatest players of all time. Those lists that he went to so much needless effort to prove show Serena top 10 on every one and top 5 in most.

Being top 10 or top 5 in the open era doesn't make you "one of the greatest of all time".

 

[davey25]

Being top 10 or top 5 in the open era doesn't make you "one of the greatest of all time".

Being top 5 on practically every list in the Open Era does make you one of the greatest of all time. Just as the top 5 or 6 mens players in the Open Era- Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver, Connors, and Lendl are all amongst the greatest of all time.

 

[FlamEnemY]

Anyway, I think Marcelo Rios is kind of overrated, as are some other guys from the 90s. I don't think that nearly any player is overrated, though. Almost all of the players praised on this board are great champions. They just seem overrated because so many other guys are underrated.

I think you nailed it. It's amazing how some people carelessly label players as "talentless clowns" , "chokers" and so on sometimes. That's ugly and absolutely disrespectful. So yeah, there is a certain lack of appreciation of what those athletes do, and as such they are underrated.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I’ve never created any thread about Serena just to get people’s attention on her. I react to members who attacked other WTA players.

So much for that....

 

[TMF]

So much for that....

That post was published well before I created this thread. There were too much undermining other TIER 1 great players and that's why it all started. Stop trolling and stick to the discussion.