Ranking the Major Championship Strike Rate for the WTA Greats as a comparison to Serena Williams

[FrontHeadlock]

1. Margaret Court: 51.1% (24/47)

2. Steffi Graf: 40.1% (22/54)

3. Chris Evert: 32.1% (18/56)

4. Serena Williams: 28.4% (23/81)

5. Martina Navratilova: 26.9% (18/67)

------------------------------------------------------------------

This statistic never gets mentioned that much, but it is pretty telling. And fwiw, none of these women really hung on way too late and played years and years with early defeats. Each had at least 1 SF appearance in her last 5 Majors played.

And for what it's worth, if you totally remove the Australian Open from her tally, Margaret Court has a career strike rate of 39.4% (13/33), which would be second all time barely to Steffi Graf, and it would only be behind Steffi because she came back in 1975 after the birth of her 2nd child and finished QF-SF-QF in the three Majors she played.

Also it's interesting that Martina Navratilova is by far the lowest given that there are some people who would rank her #1 out of the entire group.

 

[urban]

Helen Wills 19 out of 22.

 

[Art Tennis]

What about Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Moody Willis and Maureen Connelly?

 

[Vicious49]

Martina played a long time so it's understandable that her rate would be lower. Steffi retired relatively young so she didn't hang around. Still, I've always thought Steffi was the best followed by Martina. Serena gets a lot of hype, and she deserves it for what she did for minorities that weren't represented or necessarily welcome on the tour. But that hype gets translated over to '23 slams, goat, etc. and I've never thought she was that.

She hit harder than everyone during her era. Shaq was the most dominant force in the paint during his era because of his size. When you take a step back and say does that make them the goat when comparing to players from other eras? I don't think so. Johnny Mac was absolutely right that she would get smashed by the 200th ranked ATP player because they would hit through her instead of the other way around. Heck, Iga may be able to hit through her if they had played during the same time.

 

[jm1980]

What about Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Moody Willis and Maureen Connelly?

Suzanne Lenglen: 8/11* (72.7%)
Helen Wills: 19/24 (79.2%)
Maureen Connolly: 9/11 (81.8%)

* Lenglen won an additional 4/6 French Championships when they were only open to French club members

 

[boredone3456]

What a surprise, the 2 women out of the 5 who played the most majors end up having the lowest Strike Rate. The more you play, the lower your win % gets unless you win virtually everything. Plus, factor in that Navratilova had major loses to all of Court, Graf and Evert during her career. She also played 2 majors in 2004 when she was 46(?) and hadn't played competitive singles for a decade.

Also, considering she ranks last in this category, she won 167 singles titles, more than Serena, Graf and Evert. Only Court has potentially won more (depending on what you want to count as a title).

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Martina played a long time so it's understandable that her rate would be lower.

Perhaps, but that cuts both ways. if you play longer you get more opportunities to win.

With respect to Martina, aside from her "comeback" in 2004 when she lost early in the 2 Majors she played (1R, 2R), she was still playing well. In her last 10 Major appearances before she retired in 1994, she reached the SF or better 5 times, and made 3 finals winning 1. That suggests that she was competitive while she was playing.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

What a surprise, the 2 women out of the 5 who played the most majors end up having the lowest Strike Rate. The more you play, the lower your win % gets unless you win virtually everything. Plus, factor in that Navratilova had major loses to all of Court, Graf and Evert during her career. She also played 2 majors in 2004 when she was 46(?) and hadn't played competitive singles for a decade.

You can make adjustments sure, but for example where do you want to cut off Serena?

If we cut her off after her last Major final (2019 USO), he strike rate is 23/73 or 31.5%. So it goes up a little bit but not dramatically. But she also made 2 additional SFs in her next 4 Majors, so again she was still competitive.

Likewise, you can cut people off at a similar number of Major appearances. If you cut off Serena at 54 Major appearances (same as Graf), her strike rate through the 2014 RG is 31.5% (17/54). She'd also be 5 and 7 Majors behind Graf and Court, respectively.

 

[urban]

Wills was 19 out of 22, by all counts, 126-3 in all major matches. The 3 losses were final losses, 2 when she was very young and 1 a retirement against Helen Jacobs at US. He also won Olympics at Paris in 1924, when the French champs were not open to international play.

 

[jm1980]

Wills was 19 out of 22, by all counts, 126-3 in all major matches. The 3 losses were final losses, 2 when she was very young and 1 a retirement against Helen Jacobs at US. He also won Olympics at Paris in 1924, when the French champs were not open to international play.

19 out of 23, at least, no? She withdrew from the 1926 French Championships after playing a match, for an emergency appendectomy.

19 out of 24 if you include 1926 Wimbledon, which also technically counts as a default after entering the tournament

Wills had an emergency appendectomy during the 1926 French National Championship, which caused her to default her second round match and also withdraw from Wimbledon.

https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/helen-wills-moody-roark

 

[urban]

Its correct, that in the French champs in 1926, Wills had to default before her match with Kea Bouman of the Netherlands in the second round after beating Germaine Golding of France 7-5,6-3 in the first round. That i would indeed reckon as participation.

 

[Art Tennis]

Suzanne Lenglen also retired in some of those slam "losses" she had.

 

[Gizo]

In terms of Navratilova, while of course I'm not denying her longevity was impressive any way you look at it, I've always had doubts about the assumption or conclusion that her longevity was automatically unparalleled and far superior to that of some of the other all-time greats, based on the fact that she had a relatively slower start compared to them.

She won her her first singles major title at Wimbledon in 1978 at the approximate age of 21 years and 9 months, her 23rd career title overall.

By comparison at that same age Graf had already won 9 majors and 54 titles overall, Evert 6 majors and 64 titles overall, Serena 5 majors and 22 titles overall (including the YEC, Indian Wells x 2, Miami x 2, Rome, Canada plus numerous Tier II events with strong fields in an era when racking tour level titles was far more difficult), Court 8 majors and I'm sure already a truckload of titles overall.

 

[PDJ]

Serena Williams played for 200 years and only has 73 titles.
;(

 

[FrontHeadlock]

In terms of Navratilova, while of course I'm not denying her longevity was impressive any way you look at it, I've always had doubts about the assumption or conclusion that her longevity was automatically unparalleled and far superior to that of some of the other all-time greats, based on the fact that she had a relatively slower start compared to them.

She won her her first singles major title at Wimbledon in 1978 at the approximate age of 21 years and 9 months, her 23rd career title overall.

By comparison at that same age Graf had already won 9 majors and 54 titles overall, Evert 6 majors and 64 titles overall, Serena 5 majors and 22 titles overall (including the YEC, Indian Wells x 2, Miami x 2, Rome, Canada plus numerous Tier II events with strong fields in an era when racking tour level titles was far more difficult), Court 8 majors and I'm sure already a truckload of titles overall.

I'm hoping some of the older posters can fill in the gaps on why Navratilova is so praised. To me, there are two things about Navratilova's resume that are problematic:

1. When you look at her resume at the Majors, she feels like a player who took advantage of Evert's natural decline until the rise of Graf. To wit, prior to 1982 Evert had 12 Majors and Martina only 3, even though their careers largely line up timing wise. In 1982 they each won 2 majors, at which point Evert had 14 and Martina 5. From that point Evert seems to have declined slightly winning only 4 more Majors between 1983 and 1987, inclusive, while Martina won twelve during that period. From 1988 onwards (when Graf had her breakout year), Evert won 0 Majors and Martina won 1. This sounds more inflammatory than I mean it to be, but was Martina perhaps the transitional player between Evert and Graf who were each better than her?

2. Courts at the 3 non-RG Majors were very fast for most of those time periods, so as I have argued previously success at RG is really the driver of surface diversity for a player's resume. While Court, Evert and Graf had 5, 7 and 6 titles at RG respectively, Navratilova only had 2. Was Navratilova perhaps also the least versatile of the top 5? I also note that Serena only had 3 RG titles, and her last was about as weak as they come.

 

[10nispro]

You can make adjustments sure, but for example where do you want to cut off Serena?

If we cut her off after her last Major final (2019 USO), he strike rate is 23/73 or 31.5%. So it goes up a little bit but not dramatically. But she also made 2 additional SFs in her next 4 Majors, so again she was still competitive.

Likewise, you can cut people off at a similar number of Major appearances. If you cut off Serena at 54 Major appearances (same as Graf), her strike rate through the 2014 RG is 31.5% (17/54). She'd also be 5 and 7 Majors behind Graf and Court, respectively.

And it’s not just the slam winning percentage. All meaningful metrics would yield the same results. Yes Navratilova does move up the rank in some like match winning steak etc but Serena stays below 3 in almost all the metrics

 

[Razer]

Weaker the era, higher your strike rate !

Court won too many slams in the pre open era, Graf won too many slams in the absence of Seles. Both of them are a cut below Serena Williams.

Only Martina Navratilova has a case for being on par with Serena or ahead, nobody else in WTA.

 

[insideguy]

Weaker the era, higher your strike rate !

Court won too many slams in the pre open era, Graf won too many slams in the absence of Seles. Both of them are a cut below Serena Williams.

Only Martina Navratilova has a case for being on par with Serena or ahead, nobody else in WTA.

I disagree. Evert has a case. She was banned from 3 French opens in her prime when no one was beating her on Clay. She missed all but one Aussie open in the 70s.

 

[Razer]

I disagree. Evert has a case. She was banned from 3 French opens in her prime when no one was beating her on Clay. She missed all but one Aussie open in the 70s.

Ya she too has a case but she has a losing H2H to Navratilova. 37-43 is still close enough but 24-36 is not a very good record in finals. Plus even Navratilova missed some FO an AOs of her own.

 

[insideguy]

Ya she too has a case but she has a losing H2H to Navratilova. 37-43 is still close enough but 24-36 is not a very good record in finals. Plus even Navratilova missed some FO an AOs of her own.

Martina was not as dominant on Clay as Chris Evert was. It would be like Martina missing 3 Wimbledons in her prime. But you are correct, I think both these players really get jobbed when they talk about all time greats. Personally if the tour was the same then as it is now, everyone would be arguing about these two being the best ever. Because both of them would have easily went over 20 slams at least. Probably into the 25 slam areas. And everyone else would be looking up.

 

[10nispro]

Weaker the era, higher your strike rate !

Court won too many slams in the pre open era, Graf won too many slams in the absence of Seles. Both of them are a cut below Serena Williams.

Only Martina Navratilova has a case for being on par with Serena or ahead, nobody else in WTA.

Women's era was always open, true that Court won a lot of australian open but her accomplishments are phenomenal spread across a number of years, even as a mom. She owned every player she played against. Serena is no where near her in any accomplishment except for slams where she is again behind. even with your argument, court did her Grand slam in open era. Seles stabbing has just been exaggerated by people who were not there in the 90's. Seles's wound was a minor one which healed very quickly, and even with your argument, Seles did her grand slam, golden slam, winning percentages, world number one, everything before seles's stabbing. And if we go with your argument, then Serena won most once Henin/Clijsters retired and there was hardly any competition. Players like Wozniaki became world number 1, and another example is that during the last 21/22 slams , 14 new/different winners have won (and yet Serena could not win one). I can even go in the details of consistency during the last ten years by showing lack of consistency in the quarterfinalists of all slams, but I won't because you should not compare era's like this. Imagine, a qualifier winning a slam, we could have never dreamt of this 20 years back.
SO you either compare each and everything or none. The fact is that since Serena doesn't have any single stand alone achievement, her fans are trying to take the credit away from other great players, which to me, is highly unfair and unjust with the game.

 

[Razer]

Women's era was always open, true that Court won a lot of australian open but slam her accomplishments are phenomenal spread across a number of years, even as a mom. She owned every player she played against. Serena is no where near her in any accomplishment except for slams where she is again behind. even with your argument, court did her Grand slam in open era. Seles stabbing has just been exaggerated by people who were not there in the 90's. Seles's wound was a minor won which healed very quickly, and even with your argument, Seles did her grand slam, golden slam, winning percentages, world number one, everything before seles's stabbing. And if we go with your argument, then Serena won most once Henin/Clijsters retired and there was hardly any competition. Players like Wozniaki became world number 1, and another example is that during the last 21/22 slams , 14 new/different winners have won (and yet Serena could not win one). I can even go in the details of consistency during the last ten years by showing lack of consistency in the quarterfinalists of all slams, but I won't because you should not compare era's like this. Imagine, a qualifier winning a slam, we could have never dreamt of this 20 years back.
SO you either compare each and everything or none. The fact is that since Serena doesn't have any single stand alone achievement, her fans are trying to take the credit away from other great players, which to me, is highly unfair and unjust with the game.

I don't know much about Court, I have heard that before 80s people avoided traveling to Australia since it was too costly and not feasible and the slam was not a proper slam, so a lot of records pre open era are inflated for the champs who won there.

But regarding Seles-Graf, I am sure that Graf doesn't deserve a slam more than 17. Seles was on some unreal Novak type streak in Australia before her stabbing and she was also a titan on Clay who would have won loads in her 20s. I also believe she would win at least 1 wimbledon too in her 20s and defend her USO as winning is a contagious affair, wins on best courts often spread to less favourable courts too as we saw with Nadal-Fed, the french wins became Wimbledon and HC wins for the younger ATG Rafa. In any case,e even if I only consider the AOs and FOs, still Graf should be on 17 only and not a slam more. She has no claim on GOAThood as far as I am concerned. Serena is a bonafide champion, she was the leading slams winner of 2000s a well, so it is not suprising if he body outlasted her sister/henin/clijsters etc etc.

For me Tier 1 is always Serena, Navratilova and Evert.
I don't know much about Court, so I will leave her be but Graf for me is definetly below those 3 ladies, nothing will convince me otherwise, sorry, we can agree to disagree on this.

 

[10nispro]

I don't know much about Court, I have heard that before 80s people avoided traveling to Australia since it was too costly and not feasible and the slam was not a proper slam, so a lot of records pre open era are inflated for the champs who won there.

But regarding Seles-Graf, I am sure that Graf doesn't deserve a slam more than 17. Seles was on some unreal Novak type streak in Australia before her stabbing and she was also a titan on Clay who would have won loads in her 20s. I also believe she would win at least 1 wimbledon too in her 20s and defend her USO as winning is a contagious affair, wins on best courts often spread to less favourable courts too as we saw with Nadal-Fed, the french wins became Wimbledon and HC wins for the younger ATG Rafa. In any case,e even if I only consider the AOs and FOs, still Graf should be on 17 only and not a slam more. She has no claim on GOAThood as far as I am concerned. Serena is a bonafide champion, she was the leading slams winner of 2000s a well, so it is not suprising if he body outlasted her sister/henin/clijsters etc etc.

For me Tier 1 is always Serena, Navratilova and Evert.
I don't know much about Court, so I will leave her be but Graf for me is definetly below those 3 ladies, nothing will convince me otherwise, sorry, we can agree to disagree on this.

Any accomplishment where Serena leads all time stand alone?

 

[Razer]

Any accomplishment where Serena leads all time stand alone?

Longest Gap between 1st and last slam - 17.5 years

This is exceptional longevity

 

[RaulRamirez]

Women's era was always open, true that Court won a lot of australian open but slam her accomplishments are phenomenal spread across a number of years, even as a mom. She owned every player she played against. Serena is no where near her in any accomplishment except for slams where she is again behind. even with your argument, court did her Grand slam in open era. Seles stabbing has just been exaggerated by people who were not there in the 90's. Seles's wound was a minor won which healed very quickly, and even with your argument, Seles did her grand slam, golden slam, winning percentages, world number one, everything before seles's stabbing. And if we go with your argument, then Serena won most once Henin/Clijsters retired and there was hardly any competition. Players like Wozniaki became world number 1, and another example is that during the last 21/22 slams , 14 new/different winners have won (and yet Serena could not win one). I can even go in the details of consistency during the last ten years by showing lack of consistency in the quarterfinalists of all slams, but I won't because you should not compare era's like this. Imagine, a qualifier winning a slam, we could have never dreamt of this 20 years back.
SO you either compare each and everything or none. The fact is that since Serena doesn't have any single stand alone achievement, her fans are trying to take the credit away from other great players, which to me, is highly unfair and unjust with the game.

Per the overall question, I don't know how important "strike rates" are, but in general, I think sometimes Chris Evert is overlooked when the greats of the women's game are discussed. Indeed, I have trouble coming to a conclusion about it, as there are more variables than in the men's discussions.
If including those whose careers predated the Open Era, even with all her negatives, Margaret Court has a very strong case. Her record is overwhelmingly dominant. But her aside, perhaps Evert's "strike rate" is of some importance as she missed three excellent opportunities to win at the FO and seven good ones at the AO. Martina N missed 5 apiece at those tourneys, but at a time when she wasn't quite as formidable.

Obviously, Serena also is a strong candidate...

I simply haven't come to a strong conclusion about the women's mythical GOAT. For the men if I only (as I do) count those who started in the OE, those who missed opportunities at the AO (Connors, Borg...Lendl?) and possibly FO are not a threat to the Big 3, anyway.

But here's what really prompted me to reply.
" Seles's wound was a minor won {sic.} which healed very quickly..."
First of all, I've never held the stabbing incident against Graf, and I simply don't know how to factor it in when assessing her career -- or Seles' for that matter. In some ways, it was tragic for both, but obviously Monica bore the brunt of it.

Just looking at facts, Seles was only 19 when it happened, and it caused her to miss the next 10 slams.
Oh yeah, she had won 7 of the previous 9 -- 7 of the 8 she had entered. I'm not one for hypotheticals, and there's no way to know how many of those she would have won, and how many of the 6 Steffi won, she still would have. Of course, Graf had proven her greatness before and after that period.

But on the human level, how can you just dismiss the attack as a minor one? it took a lot of courage for her to come back from that attack -- in part physically, but also, obviously, psychologically/emotionally.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I'm hoping some of the older posters can fill in the gaps on why Navratilova is so praised. To me, there are two things about Navratilova's resume that are problematic:

1. When you look at her resume at the Majors, she feels like a player who took advantage of Evert's natural decline until the rise of Graf. To wit, prior to 1982 Evert had 12 Majors and Martina only 3, even though their careers largely line up timing wise. In 1982 they each won 2 majors, at which point Evert had 14 and Martina 5. From that point Evert seems to have declined slightly winning only 4 more Majors between 1983 and 1987, inclusive, while Martina won twelve during that period. From 1988 onwards (when Graf had her breakout year), Evert won 0 Majors and Martina won 1. This sounds more inflammatory than I mean it to be, but was Martina perhaps the transitional player between Evert and Graf who were each better than her?

Are these comments serious? Why was Martina so praised? Martina a transitional player?

What in the world is going on? This is what happens when you just browse through ultimate tennis statistics or whatever and start calculating strike rates.

Unreal.

 

[Rosstour]

Heck, Iga may be able to hit through her if they had played during the same time.

lol, no

 

[Rosstour]

Are these comments serious? Why was Martina so praised? Martina a transitional player?

What in the world is going on? This is what happens when you just browse through ultimate tennis statistics or whatever and start calculating strike rates.

Unreal.

Martina is getting the Federer Treatment. Absolute mug, Weak Era Queen.

 

[Razer]

Are these comments serious? Why was Martina so praised? Martina a transitional player?

What in the world is going on? This is what happens when you just browse through ultimate tennis statistics or whatever and start calculating strike rates.

Unreal.

Well said.

Navratilova is THE TITAN of WTA, she is literally Tennis in herself. Singles, Doubles, she has been godly everywhere. Right from our childhood days we are hearing the name Martina Navratilova and even today it shines bright, calling her a transitional player is like calling Rod Laver Transitional

 

[10nispro]

Are these comments serious? Why was Martina so praised? Martina a transitional player?

What in the world is going on? This is what happens when you just browse through ultimate tennis statistics or whatever and start calculating strike rates.

Unreal.

You have articulated it very well.
Not only that, I can see that people become gurus after googling the stats, they also start comparing two era's and players, and then become selective as well in applying the logic. The objective is to belittle the achievement of some of the greats just to make some the greatest who is not.

 

[10nispro]

Longest Gap between 1st and last slam - 17.5 years

This is exceptional longevity

If you will check, I had mentioned this already in my earlier posts. That her only records are age related or possibly the first African American etc. You won't find any which are meaningful. In fact I can find you some better than you have found.

 

[10nispro]

Per the overall question, I don't know how important "strike rates" are, but in general, I think sometimes Chris Evert is overlooked when the greats of the women's game are discussed. Indeed, I have trouble coming to a conclusion about it, as there are more variables than in the men's discussions.
If including those whose careers predated the Open Era, even with all her negatives, Margaret Court has a very strong case. Her record is overwhelmingly dominant. But her aside, perhaps Evert's "strike rate" is of some importance as she missed three excellent opportunities to win at the FO and seven good ones at the AO. Martina N missed 5 apiece at those tourneys, but at a time when she wasn't quite as formidable.

Obviously, Serena also is a strong candidate...

I simply haven't come to a strong conclusion about the women's mythical GOAT. For the men if I only (as I do) count those who started in the OE, those who missed opportunities at the AO (Connors, Borg...Lendl?) and possibly FO are not a threat to the Big 3, anyway.

But here's what really prompted me to reply.
" Seles's wound was a minor won {sic.} which healed very quickly..."
First of all, I've never held the stabbing incident against Graf, and I simply don't know how to factor it in when assessing her career -- or Seles' for that matter. In some ways, it was tragic for both, but obviously Monica bore the brunt of it.

Just looking at facts, Seles was only 19 when it happened, and it caused her to miss the next 10 slams.
Oh yeah, she had won 7 of the previous 9 -- 7 of the 8 she had entered. I'm not one for hypotheticals, and there's no way to know how many of those she would have won, and how many of the 6 Steffi won, she still would have. Of course, Graf had proven her greatness before and after that period.

But on the human level, how can you just dismiss the attack as a minor one? it took a lot of courage for her to come back from that attack -- in part physically, but also, obviously, psychologically/emotionally.

I am sure you would appreciate, I can't repeat everything in all my posts as a lot is already repeated. The human element, I had already covered in the first post. Most arguments are being put forward by members who were not there in the 90s, so I have been continuously asking why Seles did not join once the wound was healed and nobody has answered. Because, they have just read the sensationalised news from the archives without any correlation of all the events that happened then.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I am sure you would appreciate, I can't repeat everything in all my posts as a lot is already repeated. The human element, I had already covered in the first post. Most arguments are being put forward by members who were not there in the 90s, so I have been continuously asking why Seles did not join once the wound was healed and nobody has answered. Because, they have just read the sensationalised news from the archives without any correlation of all the events that happened then.

I don't remember your point in that direction, but it's not a mystery to me at all.

She's a 19-year-old girl at the very top of the game -- a then-dominant world #1 -- and a crazed lunatic rushes on court and stabs her. It's not just a basic injury. if she hung up her racket right then and there, I'd understand it.

 

[10nispro]

I don't remember your point in that direction, but it's not a mystery to me at all.

She's a 19-year-old girl at the very top of the game -- a then-dominant world #1 -- and a crazed lunatic rushes on court and stabs her. It's not just a basic injury. if she hung up her racket right then and there, I'd understand it.

Was Graf "slumping" during Seles' supremacy?

I grew up watching Navratilova, Graf, Becker, Conners, Lendl, Edberg and those were the times when access to live matches was not that easy. I remember had to plan in advance to watch all the slams at a club and later, a friends place. I started playing tennis as a young teenager in 1985 too...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[thrust]

1. Margaret Court: 51.1% (24/47)

2. Steffi Graf: 40.1% (22/54)

3. Chris Evert: 32.1% (18/56)

4. Serena Williams: 28.4% (23/81)

5. Martina Navratilova: 26.9% (18/67)

------------------------------------------------------------------

This statistic never gets mentioned that much, but it is pretty telling. And fwiw, none of these women really hung on way too late and played years and years with early defeats. Each had at least 1 SF appearance in her last 5 Majors played.

And for what it's worth, if you totally remove the Australian Open from her tally, Margaret Court has a career strike rate of 39.4% (13/33), which would be second all time barely to Steffi Graf, and it would only be behind Steffi because she came back in 1975 after the birth of her 2nd child and finished QF-SF-QF in the three Majors she played.

Also it's interesting that Martina Navratilova is by far the lowest given that there are some people who would rank her #1 out of the entire group.

t
Great Posti- Fair and ACCURATE! Fact IS that Court won 6 of her AO titles vs top competition: Bueno, BJK and peak Goolagong. Had they competed in the other 5, chances are Cour would have won 3-5 of them.

 

[thrust]

Suzanne Lenglen: 8/11* (72.7%)
Helen Wills: 19/24 (79.2%)
Maureen Connolly: 9/11 (81.8%)

* Lenglen won an additional 4/6 French Championships when they were only open to French club members

There was a Major tournament, The World Hard Court Championships, played in Paris before the official FO accepted foreign players. Hard Court, was the English word for clay surface at that time. Most top players competed there, and Suzanne won 4 of those titles.

 

[10nispro]

What about Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Moody Willis and Maureen Connelly?

It's important to mention here, that women had serious challenges in those days so they deserve extra credit. (It has been opposite in the open era)

 

[thrust]

Well said.

Navratilova is THE TITAN of WTA, she is literally Tennis in herself. Singles, Doubles, she has been godly everywhere. Right from our childhood days we are hearing the name Martina Navratilova and even today it shines bright, calling her a transitional player is like calling Rod Laver Transitional

Court won 190 titles, many doubles and mixed doubles titles with various partners. AGAIN, Womens's Tennis was ALWAYS OPEN, as there was NO women's pro tour.

 

[10nispro]

Well said.

Navratilova is THE TITAN of WTA, she is literally Tennis in herself. Singles, Doubles, she has been godly everywhere. Right from our childhood days we are hearing the name Martina Navratilova and even today it shines bright, calling her a transitional player is like calling Rod Laver Transitional

Agree. But doubles is a totally different game, though her achievements as you said, are spread across all areas

 

[Debraj]

Excuse my english,just want to say one thing, women's tennis wasn't open always (at least as far as I know),for example lenglen herself turned professional at the end of 1926 iirc,and Pauline betz(probably the best female player of 1940s) also turned professional at the end of 1940s iirc,althea gibson also turned professional.sorry if anything i stated wrong

 

[thrust]

Excuse my english,just want to say one thing, women's tennis wasn't open always (at least as far as I know),for example lenglen herself turned professional at the end of 1926 iirc,and Pauline betz(probably the best female player of 1940s) also turned professional at the end of 1940s iirc,althea gibson also turned professional.sorry if anything i stated wrong

Lenglen and Betz basically played two women exhibition matches. Lenglen was near the end of her peak and did not want to play Wills anymore, so played exhibition matches for money. The same was true with Gibson. She and a low ranked but pretty blonde played matches between half times of Harlem Globetrotters matches. Gibson was also at the end of her peak. The men's pro tour had most of the top players competing in the fifties and sixties: Gonzales, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. The only really top player on the amateur tour was Emerson, who won nothing important in the open era.

 

[PDJ]

Lenglen and Betz basically played two women exhibition matches. Lenglen was near the end of her peak and did not want to play Wills anymore, so played exhibition matches for money. The same was true with Gibson. She and a low ranked but pretty blonde played matches between half times of Harlem Globetrotters matches. Gibson was also at the end of her peak. The men's pro tour had most of the top players competing in the fifties and sixties: Gonzales, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. The only really top player on the amateur tour was Emerson, who won nothing important in the open era.

Isn't Pauline Betz being 'professional' mired in controversy? I'd need to look it up but have a vague recollection that she was treated badly.

 

[PDJ]

From Wikipedia:

Professional
Her amateur career ended in 1947 when the USLTA revoked her amateur status for exploring the possibilities of turning professional.[9][12][13][14] Betz played two professional tours of matches against Sarah Palfrey Cooke (1947) and Gussie Moran (1951).[10] A professional tour against Maureen Connolly was planned for 1955, but did not materialize due to Connolly's career-ending injury.[15]

Seemingly, she hadn't actually turned professional. Dark days.
Her record during the war years is quite remarkable. Clearly a very unlucky player in terms of being robbed by both external (WWll) and internal (USTLA) forces.

 

[Lorenn]

She won her her first singles major title at Wimbledon in 1978 at the approximate age of 21 years and 9 months, her 23rd career title overall.

By comparison at that same age Graf had already won 9 majors and 54 titles overall, Evert 6 majors and 64 titles overall, Serena 5 majors and 22 titles overall (including the YEC, Indian Wells x 2, Miami x 2, Rome, Canada plus numerous Tier II events with strong fields in an era when racking tour level titles was far more difficult), Court 8 majors and I'm sure already a truckload of titles overall.

Huge changes in Tennis gear during that time. Younger players tend to do well when there is massive change. They grew up with the "new gear".

 

[Nadalgaenger]

1. Margaret Court: 51.1% (24/47)

2. Steffi Graf: 40.1% (22/54)

3. Chris Evert: 32.1% (18/56)

4. Serena Williams: 28.4% (23/81)

5. Martina Navratilova: 26.9% (18/67)

------------------------------------------------------------------

This statistic never gets mentioned that much, but it is pretty telling. And fwiw, none of these women really hung on way too late and played years and years with early defeats. Each had at least 1 SF appearance in her last 5 Majors played.

And for what it's worth, if you totally remove the Australian Open from her tally, Margaret Court has a career strike rate of 39.4% (13/33), which would be second all time barely to Steffi Graf, and it would only be behind Steffi because she came back in 1975 after the birth of her 2nd child and finished QF-SF-QF in the three Majors she played.

Also it's interesting that Martina Navratilova is by far the lowest given that there are some people who would rank her #1 out of the entire group.

This same stat hurts Fed against Djokodal fwiw

 

[PDJ]

1. Margaret Court: 51.1% (24/47)

2. Steffi Graf: 40.1% (22/54)

3. Chris Evert: 32.1% (18/56)

4. Serena Williams: 28.4% (23/81)

5. Martina Navratilova: 26.9% (18/67)

------------------------------------------------------------------

This statistic never gets mentioned that much, but it is pretty telling. And fwiw, none of these women really hung on way too late and played years and years with early defeats. Each had at least 1 SF appearance in her last 5 Majors played.

And for what it's worth, if you totally remove the Australian Open from her tally, Margaret Court has a career strike rate of 39.4% (13/33), which would be second all time barely to Steffi Graf, and it would only be behind Steffi because she came back in 1975 after the birth of her 2nd child and finished QF-SF-QF in the three Majors she played.

Also it's interesting that Martina Navratilova is by far the lowest given that there are some people who would rank her #1 out of the entire group.

It's a stat that only includes wins of majors.
Majors have only been equally weighted/attended since the mid/late 1980s.
Also, if you're judging by majors alone, then open it wider: how often did some of these women fall in the first, second round etc?
That gives a fuller picture of overall career success.

 

[thrust]

From Wikipedia:

Professional
Her amateur career ended in 1947 when the USLTA revoked her amateur status for exploring the possibilities of turning professional.[9][12][13][14] Betz played two professional tours of matches against Sarah Palfrey Cooke (1947) and Gussie Moran (1951).[10] A professional tour against Maureen Connolly was planned for 1955, but did not materialize due to Connolly's career-ending injury.[15]

Seemingly, she hadn't actually turned professional. Dark days.
Her record during the war years is quite remarkable. Clearly a very unlucky player in terms of beingrobbed by both external (WWll) and internal (USTLA) forces.

True, Pauline was treated very unfairly by the USTA. Pauline dominated Brough, Hart and du Pont in the early to mid-forties, but lost the French final, in a tough three setter to du Pont I think in 46 and the US final to Palfrey-Cooke in 41 and 45

 

[Debraj]

@thrust , i apologize sorry.probably i misunderstood you.just wanted to say that, amature authority wasn't more forgiving towards women, who turned professional.obviously situation was more bad in men's tennis.

 

[Pheasant]

I grew up watching Martina and Evert. Martina had insane approach shots. Her grass court game was unlike anything I've ever seen. She always knew when to approach the net and she hit the perfect shots when she was up there. And she set up the approach shots with the best one-handed slice-backhand that I've ever seen in the WTA. She kept working on her game until she peaked at a relatively old age. That's her only down fall. She peaked at an old age for women's tennis.

Let's break down the surfaces:
Grass: Goat easily, although her late age of hitting her peak made sure that she only won 9 Wimbledon titles.
Carpet: Goat again. IIRC, she had 3 separate winning steaks of 30+ each; all within a 5 year span. She was virtually unbeatable on carpet at her peak.
clay: OK. She only won 2 FO titles. But she had the clay GOAT in her way for her entire career.
hard courts: top 5. She won 4 USO titles in a 5 year span, which include 2 wins over Evert and 1 over Steffi.

And lastly, let's look at her 5 year peak from 1982-1986 to see how often she won on each surface:

Grass: 109-2, .982
Carpet: 148-4, .974
Hard court: 97-4, .960
Clay: 72-4, .947

Her worst surface by far was clay with a ridiculous .947 winning pct. To put that clay record into perspective, how many ATP players have done 72-4 or better in a single year in the past 20 seasons? .947 with 72+ wins is nearly impossible for a single season. Martina did this on her worst surface.

Yeah, she only won 18 slams. But she also skipped the AO and FO severeral years. And she also owned the year-end title(called the Virginia Slims) back then. That tourney paid at least as much as a slam back then. And it was televised back then as well; a big deal for that era.

Martina is my pick for #1. Her peak clinches it.

 

[see_ping]

What a surprise, the 2 women out of the 5 who played the most majors end up having the lowest Strike Rate. The more you play, the lower your win % gets unless you win virtually everything. Plus, factor in that Navratilova had major loses to all of Court, Graf and Evert during her career. She also played 2 majors in 2004 when she was 46(?) and hadn't played competitive singles for a decade.

Also, considering she ranks last in this category, she won 167 singles titles, more than Serena, Graf and Evert. Only Court has potentially won more (depending on what you want to count as a title).

Generally yes, if you play for longer you will have a lower strike rate, but Serena Williams wasn't that much worse after she turned 30 than before. Even if she just stopped when Graf did her strike rate would be much much lower than Graf. We all know she was more part-time than many of the other players anyway and the mid 2010s were also less competitive than the mid 2000s.