Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court

zvelf

Hall of Fame
My thoughts on Greatest of All Time or GOAT in a particular sport is sometimes that there can’t be one and sometimes that there can be one. Of course, there is no official title of GOAT or formal criteria for it. Statistics can confer some objectivity to it, but because sports evolve so much across different eras, a lot of subjectivity inherently enters into these debates. So there is no official GOAT. There is however often general consensus as to who is GOAT in a certain sport. That is arguably the case for all of these athletes:

Babe Ruth in baseball
Michael Jordan in basketball
Muhammad Ali in boxing
Tom Brady in American football
Pele in non-American football
Jack Nicklaus in golf
Wayne Gretzky in hockey
Michael Phelps in swimming
Usain Bolt in track

I mean sure, some of these are in dispute. Cases could be made for Willie Mays or Ty Cobb or Hank Aaron, Lebron James or Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Bill Russell, Messi or Ronaldo or Maradona, and many others. My personal opinion doesn’t align with the general consensus for all of the above, but despite some dispute, these consensus exists. With Serena Williams’ pending retirement, I’m seeing lots of claims being made for Serena as the GOAT in tennis, not even just on the female side, but the GOAT for both men and women or even the GOAT among all female athletes. I definitely do not think though that there is a consensus GOAT in even just women’s tennis. Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court’s achievements are all enormously high and those achievements are specific to the eras in which they played and qualifications are needed to clarify what their numbers mean.

Serena Williams:
She has the second most grand slam titles with 23, but the qualification is that virtually all her greatest rivals retired early, half-way through Serena’s career leaving her with a weak, inconsistent field in the second half of her career in terms of competition. Hingis mostly retired in 2003 (at age 22!), Capriati retired in 2004 (at age 28), Davenport basically played singles tennis part time after 2006 due to motherhood and retired in 2008, Henin retired in early 2008 (at age 26 while she was ranked #1), and Mauresmo retired in 2009. Clijsters retired in 2007 (at the age of 23!), a year in which she barely played. She came back in late 2009 and retired again in 2012 though she played a light schedule this entire period back. That a Clijsters who wasn't putting her full focus on tennis won 3 majors during that time speaks to how weak the women's field was after 2007. And add to that, Venus was revealed to have Sjögrens Syndrome in 2011 and didn't reach another major final until 2017. In my opinion, 2008-present is one of the weakest eras of women’s tennis that has introduced no new all-time great players (Sharapova is arguably the last ATG in women’s tennis and some probably wouldn’t even count her as an ATG; Osaka and Swiatek could still get there). This was an era when players like Dinara Safina, Caroline Wozniacki, Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, and Karolina Pliskova reached #1. Serena dominated from 2008-2017, winning 15 slams in an extremely unusual era of women's tennis with virtually zero great players to counter her (an argument could be made that Azarenka was great for 2 years but that was it). Still, Serena did have very tough competition through 2007 and during that period, she was still able to win her first Serena slam and was able to hold all 4 grand slam titles simultaneously again in 2014-2015.

Steffi Graf:
She has the third most grand slam titles with 22, but the qualification is that her biggest rival, Monica Seles, got stabbed when Seles was age 19 at a point in which Seles had won 8 of the last 9 grand slam tournaments she played. Arguably, when Seles came back to the game 3 years later, having missed her peak years, she was never quite the same with her biggest strength, her mental game, diminished. For the 2½ years while Seles was out, Graf won 6 of the 9 slams she played. Who benefitted most between Graf getting her rivalry with Seles interrupted for 2½ years or Serena having her combined rivalries with Hingis, Henin, and Clijsters disappear half-way through her career? I think that is highly debatable. Graf, however, won the Grand Slam, actually a Golden Slam, and that’s got to be worth the equivalent of at least one slam to place her roughly even Serena. Not often noted is that Graf’s Grand Slam was actually part of a run winning 5 majors in a row, which Serena has never managed.

Margaret Court:
She has the record for most grand slam titles with 24, but the qualification is that her 11 Australian Open wins often had weak draws in which many of the world’s top players did not attend, every draw of which was smaller than 1000-level tournaments of today, and Court also often had byes and so would only need to play 4 or 5 matches to win these slams. Court even won the 1966 AO title match in a walkover. This analysis (http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2021/02/07/serenas-23-vs-margarets-24/) handicaps Court’s slam wins to 20, not 24, based on estimated adjusted difficulty, albeit Serena’s 23 is downgraded to 22, also due to easier draws. All that said, Court did win the calendar-year Grand Slam, which was actually part of a run of 6 majors in a row, which no other player except Navratilova has achieved on the women’s side and Don Budge on the men’s.

Chris Evert: She won 18 grand slam titles, but the qualification is that she skipped the Australian for 2/3 of her career. She skipped it 7 times in her prime and would have been the favorite to win it at least 4 of those times. She skipped the AO 11 total times in her career. Of the 5 times she did play the Australian, she won it twice and reached the final the other 3. So Evert's major count of 18 is a major victim of the unpopular AO era. Evert was a monster on clay and she also missed 3 French Opens at her peak and would have been the favorite to win all 3 had she played. In other words, if slams mattered more in the 70s when the AO and FO had weak draws, Evert could very well have had 23 major wins.

Martina Navratilova: She won 18 grand slam titles, but the qualification, like Evert, is that she skipped the Australian Open 10 times and the French Open 10 times during her career, half of those times in years she either won other slams or at least reached slam finals. Like Evert, if slams mattered more in the 70s when the AO and FO had weak draws, Navratilova could very well have had 23 major wins.

The other thing about Evert and Navratilova is that, unlike these other GOAT-contenders, they had each other as their biggest rivals throughout the primes of their career. They played each other 80 times, 60 times were in finals, and 14 times in slam finals. Yes, their era did not have as much depth as later on, but they had to deal with waning but still strong Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, and Virginia Wade early on, a very competitive Evonne Goolagong, Tracy Austin, and Hana Mandlikova in the middle, and an ascendant Graf and Seles at the end.

It’s one thing to have to play another good player many times. It’s another to have to play another GOAT-contender 80 times in their prime. Any weaker competition in the early rounds for Evert and Navratilova were compensated for by far stronger competition in the later rounds. Between Evert (80 times), Graf (18 times), and Seles (17 times), Navratilova played them 115 times. Between Davenport (14), Hingis (13), Venus (30), Henin (14), Clijsters (9), and Sharapova (20), Serena played them 100 times, and prime Graf, Evert, and Seles are better than ALL of Serena’s strongest competition, some by a significant margin. Navratilova played a pre-stabbing Seles more times than Serena has played anyone other than Venus, Azarenka, and Sharapova.

The only area in which Serena surpasses Navratilova is with majors, but Navratilova played Evert in 14 major finals and Graf in 6. That’s 20 times against a fellow GOAT-contender. Evert played Navratilova 14 times, Graf once (in the year Graf won her Golden Slam), and Court once (in a year Court won 3 majors) in slam finals. Serena has never had to play another GOAT-contender at any stage of a slam, much less a final.

Here are some numbers:

Major wins:
Court 24
Williams 23
Graf 22
Evert 18
Navratilova 18

Major finals:
Evert 34
Williams 33
Navratilova 32
Graf 31
Court 29

Weeks at #1
Graf 377
Navratilova 332
Williams 319
Evert 260 (but this should be higher as official rankings only began when Evert was already the current #1)
Court – not applicable

Career winning percentage:
Court 91%
Evert 90%
Graf 89%
Navratilova 87%
Williams 85%

Year-end championships:
Navratilova 8
Graf 5
Williams 5
Evert 4
Court – not applicable

Premier titles won:
Navratilova 32
Graf 31
Evert 25
Williams 22
Court 3, but really not applicable

Titles won:
Court 192
Navratilova 167
Evert 157
Graf 107
Williams 73

Longest winning streaks:
Navratilova 74
Graf 66
Court 57
Evert 55
Williams 34

My conclusion: There is no GOAT in women's tennis, not because there aren't supremely great players, but because their achievements are too close to differentiate one as clearly superior.
 

ND-13

Legend
Martina was simply great. She revolutionized the sport and pretty sure she will be top 10 even at this age if she plays half the calendar.
 

Lozo1016

Hall of Fame
Ya know, I've never actually seen anyone here make the case that Evert is GOAT. I think those are the Big 5, but it's possible that Evert is just a tad below.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Serena has the most tier 1 titles, that is an important metric I think. They didn't exist in the 80s/90s, so many of the events played back then didn't have a lot of top 10/20 players in the field. Serena has played more top 10 players than any other player you list, crunch the numbers. Sort of like how so many here mock Connors 109 titles when comparing to Fed's total - if you do a deep dive you will see the same with quality of field with Chris and Martina. Yes they were each other's great rival, but the rest of the field was pretty weak. "Premier" events you list for Graf/Martina were not required events like they are today. Not to mention 16 player field were pretty common in 70s/80s(again the sport was not that deep). And you can see byes or 32 player fields for Chris and Martina at some majors they won.

There is a clear bias here(or people are just ignorant) when so many posters here repeatedly say Connors and Vilas won a ton of Mickey Mouse events, then later pretend that Martina and Chris titles can be compared to Serena's titles with no further analysis.

I attended the USO a lot in the 80s, the quality of play in the average first week women's match at a major was atrocious. Martina was grilled about the lack of depth in women's tennis by the press constantly. Now when I go see a first round match between Wang or Bouzkova at IW, I can't believe what I'm seeing(and no the same doesn't go for the men - they had great depth in 80s/90s, so many battles from round 1)

You should look at the scores at every major in say 1984 or 1994, not just the matches involving Martina, Graf etc. Lopsided scores, lack of close sets was the norm. You can factually prove there are more competitive matches on the WTA in the last 15 years or so than there were in the 80s/90s, even early 2000s. So that is a big factor to me, this isn't about recency bias. The women's game evolved so much more than the women in the Open Era.

@Gizo
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Court has the most Slams, that is the most important metric. Court also won the Grand Slam (winning all four Majors) in 1970, a feat that made her legacy immortal. No woman has achieved the Grand Slam again since Graf in 1988, which speaks volumes of the feat. It's also worth mentioning Court's dominance on clay. People only remember Court's hard court dominance with 11 AO and 6 USO, but she also won 5 RG! No woman has won 5 RG titles again since Graf.
 
Team sports are almost impossible to truly decide a "goat" player. Jordan would've won NOTHING without the team he had around him...also the different era/rules have to take into account (same with football); Brady's a career-long cheater, has played in a soft rules era for QBs, and has had a TON of help in Super Bowls (other teams choking, questionable penalties, etc). Ands a QB really better than every other player at every other position?? I don't think so; Baseball has had a long history with many all time greats--how is Ruth (who played in an era of segregation) the "GOAT"??

I don't think any convos of "who's the GOAT" of women's tennis can be had without including Maureen Connolly, Suzanne Lenglen, and Helen Wills-Moody. I'd also put BJK in any short list convo for women's players. It's about way more than just the "who's won the most Slams??" metric. The Aussie Open was not on the level of the other slams for DECADES...players routinely skipped it; players were barred from playing the French if they played World Team Tennis in the 70s; So we can't pretend everyone played 4 Slams a year, every year (like they have for the last 25 years or so)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

Sander001

Hall of Fame
Ignoring doubles is wild to me. It's not only a huge part of the sport but the extra energy you're expending at tournaments makes those achievements outstanding. Serena may have many more singles titles if she didn't play doubles.
Which is why I find Serena way ahead of Graf. But maybe behind Navratilova :unsure:
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Serena has the most tier 1 titles, that is an important metric I think. They didn't exist in the 80s/90s, so many of the events played back then didn't have a lot of top 10/20 players in the field. Serena has played more top 10 players than any other player you list, crunch the numbers. Sort of like how so many here mock Connors 109 titles when comparing to Fed's total - if you do a deep dive you will see the same with quality of field with Chris and Martina. Yes they were each other's great rival, but the rest of the field was pretty weak. "Premier" events you list for Graf/Martina were not required events like they are today. Not to mention 16 player field were pretty common in 70s/80s(again the sport was not that deep). And you can see byes or 32 player fields for Chris and Martina at some majors they won.

While that may be the case, Court, Navratilova, and Evert won well more than double the number of tournaments that Serena did, so that makes up for it.

I attended the USO a lot in the 80s, the quality of play in the average first week women's match at a major was atrocious. Martina was grilled about the lack of depth in women's tennis by the press constantly. Now when I go see a first round match between Wang or Bouzkova at IW, I can't believe what I'm seeing(and no the same doesn't go for the men - they had great depth in 80s/90s, so many battles from round 1)

You should look at the scores at every major in say 1984 or 1994, not just the matches involving Martina, Graf etc. Lopsided scores, lack of close sets was the norm. You can factually prove there are more competitive matches on the WTA in the last 15 years or so than there were in the 80s/90s, even early 2000s. So that is a big factor to me, this isn't about recency bias. The women's game evolved so much more than the women in the Open Era.

There are still a lot of lopsided scores in the WTA today, but the more important point is, of course, today's athletes look a lot better than they did 40 years ago. Sports science, nutrition and diet, equipment, training methodology, among many other things have improved a lot over that time. If you took Babe Ruth from his time and plunked him into today's MLB, he would be a subpar player. Bill Russell's size and build would be ordinary in today's NBA. That's why swimming records and track records keep getting broken over and over again. So that's not how to evaluate athletes across different eras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
I actually largely agree. All 5 are roughly the same level.

I don't feel there is a clear GOAT on the mens side right now either. Laver, Federer,Nadal, Djokovic, and even Gonzales are all fairly similar for the moment. That might sort itself out by the time both Djokovic and Nadal are retired, but not yet.
 

celito

Professional
Ignoring doubles is wild to me. It's not only a huge part of the sport but the extra energy you're expending at tournaments makes those achievements outstanding. Serena may have many more singles titles if she didn't play doubles.
Which is why I find Serena way ahead of Graf. But maybe behind Navratilova :unsure:

If my mother had 2 wheels she'd be a bicycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
The person who mentioned doubles did raise an interesting point.

The issue with factoring doubles is it seems so many people only raise it when it is convenient for them. For instance McEnroe's doubles greatness would put him atleast solidly ahead of the people fairly close to him in singles like Lendl, Connors, and Agassi. Yet most rank him behind Lendl and Connors, which is right if it is only singles being considered, but if you gave any credence to doubles, even a bit, McEnroe would clearly be ahead overall. Court is often lowballed and discounted entirely when she not only has the slam singles record, but an astonishing doubles career too, and even ranked behind Evert who not only has 6 fewer singles slams (yes there are some circumstances to that I know) but aboslutely no doubles career. Yet some of these people will use doubles to push up Navratilova or downplay Graf or someone else. It is a double standard. Atleast be consistent with your stance, doubles matters some, and how much, or not at all.

I do think doubles probably deserves some consideration. How much is debateable. This helps Serena vs Graf and Evert, although possibly still hurts her slightly vs Navratilova and Court who have even more impressive doubles careers.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Court has the most Slams, that is the most important metric. Court also won the Grand Slam (winning all four Majors) in 1970, a feat that made her legacy immortal. No woman has achieved the Grand Slam again since Graf in 1988, which speaks volumes of the feat. It's also worth mentioning Court's dominance on clay. People only remember Court's hard court dominance with 11 AO and 6 USO, but she also won 5 RG! No woman has won 5 RG titles again since Graf.

From either direction of judgement--Court is the supreme player in the sport's history, with the Grand Slam is the achievement reserved only for the few masters of the sport. Such concentrated dominance in the accepted framework of our calendar year is the most astoundingly rare level of player development/talent ever witnessed, so there's should be no doubt or question about who are the greatest of all players. It has never been about random, lower events or trivial statistics, but the defining achievements. Court earned it all, like Laver, Graf, et al. Serena is simply the "Best of the Rest" (those who could not win the Grand Slam), whether she wins this US Open of not.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Court is often lowballed and discounted entirely when she not only has the slam singles record, but an astonishing doubles career too, and even ranked behind Evert who not only has 6 fewer singles slams (yes there are some circumstances to that I know) but aboslutely no doubles career.

I've seen examples of that lunacy; some are so rattled with the need to elevate Evert above many clearly superior players in history, that they will move goal posts within the blink of an eye, if it opened the door to reconsidering Evert for something she lacked the ability to earn.
 
Last edited:

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
From either direction of judgement--Court is the supreme player in the sport's history, with the Grand Slam is the achievement reserved only for the few masters of the sport. Such concentrated dominance in the accepted framework of our calendar year is the most astoundingly rare level of player development/talent ever witnessed, so there's should be no doubt or question about who are the greatest of all players. It has never been about random, lower events or trivial statistics, but the defining achievements. Court earned it all, like Laver, Graf, et al. Serena is simply the "Best of the Rest" (those who could not win the Grand Slam), whether she wins this US Open of not.
Court and Laver won the Grand Slam when 3/4 of them were played on grass
 

CHIP72

Semi-Pro
Ya know, I've never actually seen anyone here make the case that Evert is GOAT. I think those are the Big 5, but it's possible that Evert is just a tad below.
When you consider she missed three French Opens during the period she won 125 straight clay court matches (i.e. missed three opportunities to win the tournament), I don't think she's a tad below.

IMO Chris Evert is the greatest female clay court player of all-time, and before Rafael Nadal came along she was the greatest clay court player of all-time for either gender.
 

Hoi Polloi

Professional
Serena has the most tier 1 titles, that is an important metric I think. They didn't exist in the 80s/90s, so many of the events played back then didn't have a lot of top 10/20 players in the field. Serena has played more top 10 players than any other player you list, crunch the numbers.


@Gizo

I crunched the numbers.

Steffi is 208-63 win/loss against players who, at the time the match was played, were ranked in the top 10.
Serena is at 177-72.

That is an important metric I think.

But nice try.
 
Last edited:
Court has the most Slams, that is the most important metric.

It's also worth mentioning Court's dominance on clay. People only remember Court's hard court dominance with 11 AO and 6 USO, but she also won 5 RG! No woman has won 5 RG titles again since Graf.
There was no Hard Court when she played!!

AO only changed to HC in 1988, while USO changed in 1978.

It was all Grass Court
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Chris Evert: She won 18 grand slam titles, but the qualification is that she skipped the Australian for 2/3 of her career.

So did every other top player, so it's unfair to single out Chrissy. No top player aside from Aussies bothered with it till Wilander and Lendl in 1982. Andre won it 4 times yet skipped the AO the first 7 years of his pro career.
 

CHIP72

Semi-Pro
RE: Margaret Court - people often (rightfully) mention the weak Australian Open fields she faced in much of her career, especially early in her career when she wasn't winning Slams outside of Australia. Some of those AO wins should be discounted. On the other hand, people often do NOT mention that Court temporarily retired multiple times during her prime years (late 1966 to late 1967 to get married, late summer 1971 to late summer 1972 while pregnant with her first child, 1974 while pregnant with her second child). She was the top female much of the time before and after her first two retirements, winning a calendar year Grand Slam in 1970 and triumphing in 3 of the 4 Slams in 1973. It is very realistic to think Court would have won at least 1-2 Slams in 1967, 1971-72, and 1974 had she not had those temporary retirements. When you make THAT adjustment, and cut down her Australian Open count a bit to account for the weak fields (though keeping in mind she still probably would have won most of them, especially from 1962 onward when she had the travel advantage (rather than the travel disadvantage she had relative to most players at the other three Slams), Court probably wins more than 24 Slams rather than less. (I'll also note that fellow all-time great Billie Jean King largely overlapped with Court, similar to how Evert's and Navratilova's careers mostly overlapped, and Court held a 22-10 advantage over King head-to-head.)

RE: Steffi Graf - though it wasn't her fault, I think you have to cut back her Slam count a bit due to the fact her biggest mid-career rival, Monica Seles, who had gained the upper hand on Graf by 1993 (having won 7 of the previous 8 Slams she had played in, or all Australian Opens, French Opens, and U.S. Opens from 1991 to spring 1993), was knocked out of action by a non-tennis playing injury beyond her control. Without Seles' stabbing, it is fairly likely Graf's Slam count would be lower.
 

Hoi Polloi

Professional
My thoughts on Greatest of All Time or GOAT in a particular sport is sometimes that there can’t be one and sometimes that there can be one. Of course, there is no official title of GOAT or formal criteria for it. Statistics can confer some objectivity to it, but because sports evolve so much across different eras, a lot of subjectivity inherently enters into these debates. So there is no official GOAT. There is however often general consensus as to who is GOAT in a certain sport.


The other thing about Evert and Navratilova is that, unlike these other GOAT-contenders, they had each other as their biggest rivals throughout the primes of their career. They played each other 80 times, 60 times were in finals, and 14 times in slam finals. Yes, their era did not have as much depth as later on, but they had to deal with waning but still strong Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, and Virginia Wade early on, a very competitive Evonne Goolagong, Tracy Austin, and Hana Mandlikova in the middle, and an ascendant Graf and Seles at the end.

It’s one thing to have to play another good player many times. It’s another to have to play another GOAT-contender 80 times in their prime. ….


My conclusion: There is no GOAT in women's tennis, not because there aren't supremely great players, but because their achievements are too close to differentiate one as clearly superior.

Evert and Navratilova had the greatest rivalry in women‘s tennis ever, without any doubt.
But Evert was clearly dominant in the first part whereas Navratilova was in the second part of this rivalry:

Evert was ahead with 23-6 H2H at the end of 1978 and still with 28-13 after her 6-0 6-0 drubbing of Martina in Amelia in spring 1981.
Until then Chris had won 11 slams and Martina only 2.
Had their rivalry ended then it would have been similar to Graf vs. Sabatini or Sanchez.

But then Navratilova turned the tables. She went 30-9 win/loss during the remainder of their careers. She won 16 slams from then on, Evert only 7. After her FO 83 win Chris won only 3 more slams, Martina 13!
Had the rivalry started only in summer of 1981 or 1983 it would have been similar to Serena vs Sharapova…

Admittedly Evert would have won more slams if Navratilova had never existed since she lost tons of slam finals against her rival in the 1980s. Too a far lesser degree the same can be said about Navratilova‘s losses to Evert in the 1970s.

But absent any major rivals (except to a certain degree Mandlikova with 4 slams) Evert and Navratilova shared the cake nicely right in the middle.
 

Hoi Polloi

Professional
Court has the most Slams, that is the most important metric. Court also won the Grand Slam (winning all four Majors) in 1970, a feat that made her legacy immortal. No woman has achieved the Grand Slam again since Graf in 1988, which speaks volumes of the feat. It's also worth mentioning Court's dominance on clay. People only remember Court's hard court dominance with 11 AO and 6 USO, but she also won 5 RG! No woman has won 5 RG titles again since Graf.

The AO and the USO weren’t played on hard court in the Court era….
 

Hoi Polloi

Professional
Ignoring doubles is wild to me. It's not only a huge part of the sport but the extra energy you're expending at tournaments makes those achievements outstanding. Serena may have many more singles titles if she didn't play doubles.
Which is why I find Serena way ahead of Graf. But maybe behind Navratilova :unsure:

Doubles?
The competition where Pam Shriver has 21 slams?
Gigi Fernandez 17?

Doubles is a nice distraction during two long weeks of a slam. More fun than tough practice hours against male hitting partner like Graf used to have.
Had Steffi had a big sister like Venus she would have won at least 15 (!) doubles slams.
 

Hoi Polloi

Professional
When you consider she missed three French Opens during the period she won 125 straight clay court matches (i.e. missed three opportunities to win the tournament), I don't think she's a tad below.

IMO Chris Evert is the greatest female clay court player of all-time, and before Rafael Nadal came along she was the greatest clay court player of all-time for either gender.

There were not many great clay players around in the years when Evert had that streak.
In great contrast to the 1990s.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
RE: Margaret Court - people often (rightfully) mention the weak Australian Open fields she faced in much of her career, especially early in her career when she wasn't winning Slams outside of Australia. Some of those AO wins should be discounted. On the other hand, people often do NOT mention that Court temporarily retired multiple times during her prime years (late 1966 to late 1967 to get married, late summer 1971 to late summer 1972 while pregnant with her first child, 1974 while pregnant with her second child). She was the top female much of the time before and after her first two retirements, winning a calendar year Grand Slam in 1970 and triumphing in 3 of the 4 Slams in 1973. It is very realistic to think Court would have won at least 1-2 Slams in 1967, 1971-72, and 1974 had she not had those temporary retirements. When you make THAT adjustment, and cut down her Australian Open count a bit to account for the weak fields (though keeping in mind she still probably would have won most of them, especially from 1962 onward when she had the travel advantage (rather than the travel disadvantage she had relative to most players at the other three Slams), Court probably wins more than 24 Slams rather than less. (I'll also note that fellow all-time great Billie Jean King largely overlapped with Court, similar to how Evert's and Navratilova's careers mostly overlapped, and Court held a 22-10 advantage over King head-to-head.)

RE: Steffi Graf - though it wasn't her fault, I think you have to cut back her Slam count a bit due to the fact her biggest mid-career rival, Monica Seles, who had gained the upper hand on Graf by 1993 (having won 7 of the previous 8 Slams she had played in, or all Australian Opens, French Opens, and U.S. Opens from 1991 to spring 1993), was knocked out of action by a non-tennis playing injury beyond her control. Without Seles' stabbing, it is fairly likely Graf's Slam count would be lower.

This gets too much into the realm of "what if." Over any player's career, there are dozens of "what if" moments. Court taking breaks to get married and having children is her choice. If she chooses not to prioritize tennis, then we should not do it for her. Clijsters also took a long break during her peak years. That doesn't mean her achievements should be amended with "what if" achievements to elevate her. Maybe Seles would have been another GOAT-contender that I could have included here if she had not been stabbed, but we will never know and she shouldn't be elevated to that level just because it might have been. Borg retired early, but we shouldn't act as if his achievements are greater because they might have been more. Djokovic probably would have won the canceled Wimbledon, would very likely have won the USO in which he was defaulted, and he may have been the favorites at both this year's AO and USO, but he played neither. What if?
 

Hoi Polloi

Professional
RE: Margaret Court - people often (rightfully) mention the weak Australian Open fields she faced in much of her career, especially early in her career when she wasn't winning Slams outside of Australia. Some of those AO wins should be discounted. On the other hand, people often do NOT mention that Court temporarily retired multiple times during her prime years (late 1966 to late 1967 to get married, late summer 1971 to late summer 1972 while pregnant with her first child, 1974 while pregnant with her second child). She was the top female much of the time before and after her first two retirements, winning a calendar year Grand Slam in 1970 and triumphing in 3 of the 4 Slams in 1973. It is very realistic to think Court would have won at least 1-2 Slams in 1967, 1971-72, and 1974 had she not had those temporary retirements. When you make THAT adjustment, and cut down her Australian Open count a bit to account for the weak fields (though keeping in mind she still probably would have won most of them, especially from 1962 onward when she had the travel advantage (rather than the travel disadvantage she had relative to most players at the other three Slams), Court probably wins more than 24 Slams rather than less. (I'll also note that fellow all-time great Billie Jean King largely overlapped with Court, similar to how Evert's and Navratilova's careers mostly overlapped, and Court held a 22-10 advantage over King head-to-head.)

RE: Steffi Graf - though it wasn't her fault, I think you have to cut back her Slam count a bit due to the fact her biggest mid-career rival, Monica Seles, who had gained the upper hand on Graf by 1993 (having won 7 of the previous 8 Slams she had played in, or all Australian Opens, French Opens, and U.S. Opens from 1991 to spring 1993), was knocked out of action by a non-tennis playing injury beyond her control. Without Seles' stabbing, it is fairly likely Graf's Slam count would be lower.

By 1993 Graf had won 3 of the last 5 matches against Seles, 2 of them easy 2-setters.
Whereas Seles had to fight through tough 3-setters for her 2 wins.
And has it been mentioned already that Graf lost many, many matches to players like Sabatini and Novotna during that time (players she usually dominated)?

Steffi had enough „ifs“ during her career to justify a hypothetical plus in her slam count.
So no „counting back“ by cherry-picking a convenient „if“.
 
Court and Laver won the Grand Slam when 3/4 of them were played on grass

Yep. And that is why there GRANS SLAM achievements are so special.

The Grass courts of Milton, White City, Kooyong were all different.
The Grass courts of Wimbledon were all different.
The Grass court of Forest Hills were all different.

The playing conditions in Australia, England and the United States were all very different as well. No stadiums with rooves in those days.

And both Laver and Smith-Court had to spend most of the year overseas tens of thousands of kilometres away from home and their families unlike their main competitors.

Modern HC in modern stadiums are sanitiesed. There is little difference between the AO and the USO apart from the speed of the court. And virutally all the courts at both venues play the same .. which is not the case with a grass court venue.

Anyone who seriously thinks that Laver and Smith-Court had it easy compared to the players who were playing from the mid 1980s onwards weren't there to see how difficult it was for the players of the earlier eras.

Recency bias will always favour the young moderns.

Fortunately, the record books tell the whole story in an objective manner.

And BTW, if you want to talk about Tennis GOATS! You have to include ALL FORMS of tennis in the discussion. Smith-Court was not only supreme in Singles play. She also dominated the Doubles and Mixed Doubles forms of the sport during her era.
 

CHIP72

Semi-Pro
This gets too much into the realm of "what if." Over any player's career, there are dozens of "what if" moments. Court taking breaks to get married and having children is her choice. If she chooses not to prioritize tennis, then we should not do it for her. Clijsters also took a long break during her peak years. That doesn't mean her achievements should be amended with "what if" achievements to elevate her. Maybe Seles would have been another GOAT-contender that I could have included here if she had not been stabbed, but we will never know and she shouldn't be elevated to that level just because it might have been. Borg retired early, but we shouldn't act as if his achievements are greater because they might have been more. Djokovic probably would have won the canceled Wimbledon, would very likely have won the USO in which he was defaulted, and he may have been the favorites at both this year's AO and USO, but he played neither. What if?
I would agree about the "What Ifs?" if Court had come back and not been the same caliber player. But she won a CY Grand Slam after her first retirement and 3 out of 4 Slams the year after her second retirement. She was also the top female player in the world for a few years before any of her retirements. If she hadn't married or had her first child during her first two retirements, she likely remains the same caliber of player in those years as she was in the other years around that during her career. Even with her 1974 retirement, though she never won a singles Grand Slam after that, it came hard on the heels of her standout 1973 season, so there's a good chance she's probably still a top player that year too (though an emerging Chris Evert would have had something to say about that).

As for Steffi Graf, if someone had stabbed Billie Jean King (Court's contemporary) in the middle of her career, or stabbed either Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova in the late 1970s or early 1980s, eliminating Margaret Court's, Chris Evert's, or Martina Navratilova's biggest rival, it is very likely people would (rightfully) somewhat discount Court's, Evert's, or Navratilova's career accomplishments, especially if Billie Jean King, Navratilova, or Evert had the upper hand in the rivalry at the time of the stabbing. Graf's is IMO correctly included in the group of five women identified in the original post who have serious cases for being the greatest women's tennis player of all-time and has a valid argument for ranking first in that group, but when comparing those five players against one another, small factors for or against each player get magnified. And Graf having the player who was the biggest threat to her in the middle years of her career get stabbed, altering that player's (Seles') career, is definitely one of those small factors that can't really be ignored in the more detailed analysis and discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

CHIP72

Semi-Pro
By 1993 Graf had won 3 of the last 5 matches against Seles, 2 of them easy 2-setters.
Whereas Seles had to fight through tough 3-setters for her 2 wins.
And has it been mentioned already that Graf lost many, many matches to players like Sabatini and Novotna during that time (players she usually dominated)?

Steffi had enough „ifs“ during her career to justify a hypothetical plus in her slam count.
So no „counting back“ by cherry-picking a convenient „if“.
By spring 1993 Seles had also won 7 of the previous 9 Slams played. She was the top player in the world, clearing surpassing Graf at that time. Without the stabbing perhaps she maintains that status, perhaps she doesn't. But considering she was 4 1/2 years younger than Graf, the odds are relatively good Seles would have stayed ahead of Graf as the top player for some period of time after spring 1993. Whether that period of time would have been 6 months, 6 years, or some length of time in between, we'll never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

NonP

Legend
There are still a lot of lopsided scores in the WTA today, but the more important point is, of course, today's athletes look a lot better than they did 40 years ago. Sports science, nutrition and diet, equipment, training methodology, among many other things have improved a lot over that time. If you took Babe Ruth from his time and plunked him into today's MLB, he would be a subpar player. Bill Russell's size and build would be ordinary in today's NBA. That's why swimming records and track records keep getting broken over and over again. So that's not how to evaluate athletes across different eras.

FYI Jane Leavy talked to lots of baseball bigwigs - more than 250 interviews, in fact - while working on her authoritative biography of Ruth, and most of 'em agreed that Babe would still kick plenty of ass today. By no means would he be a "subpar player" in any era. More like he'd be going back and forth with Shohei Ohtani as the best two-way player of their generation/ever.

And Russell is widely considered the best defensive big in basketball history. You're talking about a stud that could stifle Wilt friggin' Chamberlain, and with the only possible exception of Shaq there's no power center then and now that could get the better of Wilt in sheer production.

Also track/swimming records have as much to do with technology as with pure athleticism, if not more. Plenty has been written about this.

As for your picks:

Babe Ruth in baseball
Michael Jordan in basketball
Muhammad Ali in boxing
Tom Brady in American football
Pele in non-American football
Jack Nicklaus in golf
Wayne Gretzky in hockey
Michael Phelps in swimming
Usain Bolt in track

In the wake of the great Bill Russell's passing I feel especially compelled to point out that it makes almost no sense to rank smalls and bigs together in basketball. It's like comparing batters and pitchers in baseball - of course Babe was both at an elite level, hence his GOATness - their responsibilities are just so different. MJ is in all probability the best wing player ever, yes (though Oscar is the most complete/versatile), but when it comes to the centers my infallible analysis places the Secretary of Defense at the very top, just a hair above Kareem whose overbearing arrogance yields to Bill's sterling leadership.

Ali is the GOAT athlete period, but if we're talking purely in terms of boxing many experts including Ali himself would say Sugar Ray Robinson was tops pound for pound.

@Sudacafan would be the 1st to take issue with your football pick. :happydevil: For all its faults I think FIFA got this more or less right, naming Pelé and Maradona co-Players of the Century. Ditto Jack vs. Tiger in golf.

Dunno much about hockey, but many a connoisseur would back Bobby over Wayne.

Bolt is the greatest sprinter ever but if we're talking T&F Carl Lewis deserves his own kudos. I mean nobody has won the Olympic long jump twice - alas the great Jesse Owens never got a chance to repeat - let alone a mind-boggling four times in a row. And for a while Carl was also the best sprinter as well. Both he and Usain are freaks that you see only once in a generation or two, if at all. I'd also put Jesse up there.

Frankly don't give a crap about American football, but suppose Brady gets the nod as the best QB.

One more thing:

Court and Laver won the Grand Slam when 3/4 of them were played on grass

So what? If anything one could argue the prevalence of grass courts made the GS more difficult, as the margins for error were so tight and the transition from grass to clay was more extreme.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Pele in non-American football

Reported on three counts.
1. and 2. Misappropriation of a sports name and a continent name simultaneously (double count). WTF is non American football? The best players of that sport trying to be denominated have been American, from South America. The name of the sport is football.
3. In which case, Maradona is the correct choice.
 
Last edited:

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Reported on three counts.
1. and 2. Misappropriation of a sports name and a continent simultaneously (double count). WTF is non American football? The best players of that sport trying to be denominated have been American, from South America. The name of the sport is football.
3. In which case, Maradona is the correct choice.

non American football is better known as soccer. It is where grown men roll in the grass crying and holding their shin.
 
Last edited:

aman92

Legend
Court has the most Slams, that is the most important metric. Court also won the Grand Slam (winning all four Majors) in 1970, a feat that made her legacy immortal. No woman has achieved the Grand Slam again since Graf in 1988, which speaks volumes of the feat. It's also worth mentioning Court's dominance on clay. People only remember Court's hard court dominance with 11 AO and 6 USO, but she also won 5 RG! No woman has won 5 RG titles again since Graf.
Many of Court's Aus Open achievements were pre open era in weak fields and 32 player draws...her major count is vastly inflated because of these
 
D

Deleted member 791948

Guest
The more you "debate" GOAT, the less clear the GOAT becomes.
I'm surprised so many folks think its worth talking about.
Tennis will never have a GOAT, no matter who wins what :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Many of Court's Aus Open achievements were pre open era in weak fields and 32 player draws...her major count is vastly inflated because of these
The biggest impact of those Court’s mini pre Open Era AO’s was negating Serena as the slam record holder.
 
Many of Court's Aus Open achievements were pre open era in weak fields and 32 player draws...her major count is vastly inflated because of these

Yes. Non fans of the sport keep trundling out that same old chestnut.

So, pray tell, why is that Margaret's fault? She played who she played and beat them when it counted.

If anything all those AO Titles indicate that her main opposition didn't bother to travel to Australia and play her because they knew she would smash them.

(Meanwhile, she would spend most of the year in America and Europe away from home, family and friends, and smash the best players in the world on their "home turf".)

Record books tell the truth of the statistics no matter what people say.
 

aman92

Legend
Yes. Non fans of the sport keep trundling out that same old chestnut.

So, pray tell, why is that Margaret's fault? She played who she played and beat them when it counted.

If anything all those AO Titles indicate that her main opposition didn't bother to travel to Australia and play her because they knew she would smash them.

(Meanwhile, she would spend most of the year in America and Europe away from home, family and friends, and smash the best players in the world on their "home turf".)

Record books tell the truth of the statistics no matter what people say.
I am just saying Considering the vast difference in fields...pre open era and open era players shouldn't be compared. It's a bit difficult in Court's and Laver's case since many of their achievements did cover both eras but the point still stands.
 
Top