Serena unquestioned GOAT if she pulls off 2015 Grand Slam

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
The fact is that people go on and on about Fed's 17 slams. And I will tell anyone here that I love his style of play in this era, because he is the only one who has won regularly who is not pushing from the baseline. I'd love to see him win another slam.

But if people are going to praise him in GOAT discussions (I do not believe in a "goat"), then to be fair we have to go by who wins the most and not by things like "weak eras", or even competition.

We will never know if Serena has been luckier with lack of competition, or if she simply is so much better than everyone else that she dominates.

I was a huge fan in the Evert/Navratilova era, and I miss that kind of competition from the top two players in the world.

But Serena has the numbers. If we are going by slams, we have to ONLY go by that. And if we are not going by slams, we need to start a new discussion.
Gary, it can never be only about the Slams. Especially when considering champions from an age where tournament weights differed significantly from today's. Serena has won fewer matches, fewer tournaments, has fewer years as #1, fewer weeks as #1, etc. Slams are a huge crutch for her. I believe wholeheartedly that she could have dominated the women's game in any point in history, but she hasn't shown the drive and professionalism that players like Evert, Graf and Navratilova had, in my view. She is her own worst enemy in the context of the GOAT discussion.
 

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
Gary, it can never be only about the Slams. Especially when considering champions from an age where tournament weights differed significantly from today's. Serena has won fewer matches, fewer tournaments, has fewer years as #1, fewer weeks as #1, etc. Slams are a huge crutch for her. I believe wholeheartedly that she could have dominated the women's game in any point in history, but she hasn't shown the drive and professionalism that players like Evert, Graf and Navratilova had, in my view. She is her own worst enemy in the context of the GOAT discussion.
Fewer tournaments because players play less as Todays game is way more physically demanding. Venus, serena and clisjters are arguably the three best ever in terms of athleticism the game has ever seen. However a lot of their career has been sidelined due to injury.

And frankly most of Nav's and Chrissie's tournament wins are today's equivalent of an international even. And no top player is playing and international event unless the get a good appearance fee. Its just not possible for a player to win 100+ titles in singles. And honestly i doubt it adds anything to serena's resume if she wins more Bastaad titles. Leave that to lesser players who actually need ranking points and the money.

Slams/WTF and Masters/Tier1's are a huge crutch of every top player in todays game. You don't see the top players playing left right and centre and playing 90+matches each year. Its a product of its own time. Thats why players go for the most important tournaments. Because thats how their career will be defined. Thats how any sporting career is defined in any sport.

Also you stated she has far fewer weeks at number 1. Well the ranking system changed in the late 90's after graf. Serena would have possibly well over 300 weeks at #1. It was much easier to keep the no 1 ranking back in the day than it is today.
 
It is true that today's Players Play less tournaments and you can't win 150+ tournaments anymore.

on the other Hand the old guys wasted a lot of energy in small tournaments (and Showcases) and regularly skipped slams that were far abroad.

Had the old time playes concentrated on slam hunting like today's Players they would have won a lot more (I suspect laver could have won 20+ and evert or Martina could have won 30 slams).

so ignoring the small tournaments but at the same time ignore that the old Players skipped slams and used more energy in small tournaments (and just compare slam Count) is not fair either.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Fewer tournaments because players play less as Todays game is way more physically demanding. Venus, serena and clisjters are arguably the three best ever in terms of athleticism the game has ever seen. However a lot of their career has been sidelined due to injury.
This is a discussion about achievements not about excuses for a lack thereof.

And frankly most of Nav's and Chrissie's tournament wins are today's equivalent of an international even. And no top player is playing and international event unless the get a good appearance fee. Its just not possible for a player to win 100+ titles in singles. And honestly i doubt it adds anything to serena's resume if she wins more Bastaad titles. Leave that to lesser players who actually need ranking points and the money.
I honestly doubt you know what you are talking about.

Slams/WTF and Masters/Tier1's are a huge crutch of every top player in todays game. You don't see the top players playing left right and centre and playing 90+matches each year. Its a product of its own time. Thats why players go for the most important tournaments. Because thats how their career will be defined. Thats how any sporting career is defined in any sport.
Obvious caveat is the fact that the other greats had good careers in doubles and mixed doubles and still managed to perform superbly in their respective singles calendars. The fact that Serena had other priorities does not give her the edge in any way. Your unqualified opinion on the weighting of the tournaments is equally irrelevant.


Also you stated she has far fewer weeks at number 1. Well the ranking system changed in the late 90's after graf. Serena would have possibly well over 300 weeks at #1. It was much easier to keep the no 1 ranking back in the day than it is today.
Of course she would. 2000 weeks at the very least.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
It is true that today's Players Play less tournaments and you can't win 150+ tournaments anymore.

on the other Hand the old guys wasted a lot of energy in small tournaments (and Showcases) and regularly skipped slams that were far abroad.

Had the old time playes concentrated on slam hunting like today's Players they would have won a lot more (I suspect laver could have won 20+ and evert or Martina could have won 30 slams).

so ignoring the small tournaments but at the same time ignore that the old Players skipped slams and used more energy in small tournaments (and just compare slam Count) is not fair either.
Also some tournaments carried more weight before the mid 80s- the Tour Championships and Family Circle Cup were considered much more prestigious than the AO, and to a lesser degree RG.
It's difficult to compare women's tennis now with then, in terms of majors won, especially as the AO was not considered a major!
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Also some tournaments carried more weight before the mid 80s- the Tour Championships and Family Circle Cup were considered much more prestigious than the AO, and to a lesser degree RG.
It's difficult to compare women's tennis now with then, in terms of majors won, especially as the AO was not considered a major!
As you can see from this thread, there are plenty of "tennis fans" that just can't be bothered with the game's history. They want it dumbed down to their level and talk about Slams as the only relevant metric in an already tedious argument.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
As you can see from this thread, there are plenty of "tennis fans" that just can't be bothered with the game's history. They want it dumbed down to their level and talk about Slams as the only relevant metric in an already tedious argument.
But there are those who have commented on this thread that clearly have a wide and varied knowledge of the game, but when it comes to SW they choose to ignore what is commonly known and acknowledged because it doesn't chime with the argument they are steadfastly, and in some cases aggressively, attempting to put across. They should know better. Blinkered by their own devotion.
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
The Grand Slam would put Serena in a fantastic position at the top of the women's game with other elites. I don't believe in the existence of a GOAT though, at least not at this stage.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
The Seles stabbing seems to be the go-to argument for people who desperately want Williams to be GOAT (although there is no such thing; it's the tennis equivalent of two kids fighting over whose father is stronger or has a better car). But that's also admitting that Seles could've been to Graf what Navratilova was to Evert. We simply don't know how that rivalry would've developed: sometimes one player starts dominating the rivalry and it remains like that until the end (like Serena and Sharapova), sometimes there are ups and downs for both players (Nadal and Djokovic), sometimes one player is about 2/3 or 3/4 more successful than the other (Sampras and Agassi), etc. Who's to say what would've happened? Graf could've raised her game to new heights against this very worthy opponent who was starting to turn the head-to-head around (it still favored Graf). Seles could've become an even greater champion than Serena or Graf. Who knows? As I said in the beginning, it could've also been an Evert-Navratilova type of rivalry, in which case both of them would've prevented each other from winning many titles. From this perspective, how many Slam finals did Serena's greatest rival - Justine Henin - play against her? Only one, compared to 14 in the Navratilova-Evert rivalry and 6 in the Graf-Seles rivalry (and that's with the stabbing).

I'm not arguing against Serena in this discussion. I'm just pointing out that in GOAT debates there is always another side of the question. Another argument that trumps the original argument. And there are too many variables. That's why I think they're ultimately pointless. Especially between players who are so close to each other in terms of achievements and who have achieved them under very different conditions.
 
Last edited:

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
What a stupid post. Thats exactly what a No 2 is supposed to do. Reach GS finals. And ivanovic is easily a top 5 player in any era. Certainly better than pam flipping shriver
Yeah like Radwanska, Ivanovic, Halep are quite similar in quality to Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori and such (in their gender of course). Serena's opponent has been Sharapova in a full decade and briefly it was Azarenka for a couple of years. She has no competition and yet she loses sets and matches even to some unknown players.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Why would she need to suggest she "still matters"??? Of course she matters, she's Martina Navratilova for goodness sake. And for many, not I it has to be said, she is considered the best ever.
She has ego issues, hence her years of saying disparaging things about Graf--who is considered the GOAT. In 1988, when Graf won the Grand Slam, that--being such an explosively historic achievement which happened on Martina's "watch" --in front of her face--and the volumes of celebratory statements about it was too much for her. That ties into Martina of the present day possibly needing to feel she has not been overlooked, as the past few years' dialogue has often focused on Serena, and if she will match Graf--even before SW actually tied Martina (and Evert) with USO '14. It was though the book of GOAT-hood is led by Graf and Court, and steps over all others until the chapters reach Serena.

Martina is skipped over, when she still doe not necessarily respect Graf and her undeniable mark on the sport.

It is conjecture, but AngieB questioned Martina appearing at all recent Serena champion ceremonies. Again, I do think she believes Serena is one of the best ever, so her being there is genuine in that regard, but there might be a secondary motivation.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Didn't you check #Wikipedia?

In 2013, while #Rafael had won (2) grand slam events, but he was absent from the #AO and lost in the 1st round of #Wimbledon. #Novak won (1) GS event but was consistent in making the later rounds of the grand slam events. The #ITF took the totality of the years results (#DavisCup included) and made their choice. They've often had to make difficult choices. This wasn't the first one, #MrWiki. No big deal.

#AngiesLyst
But to you everything is a minor except winning the slam. To the ITF, everything count and that's why Nadal didn't win the 2013 ITF award despite he won 2 slams.


Seems like ITF follow the same principle as the international panel of tennis experts.

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Gary, it can never be only about the Slams. Especially when considering champions from an age where tournament weights differed significantly from today's. Serena has won fewer matches, fewer tournaments, has fewer years as #1, fewer weeks as #1, etc. Slams are a huge crutch for her. I believe wholeheartedly that she could have dominated the women's game in any point in history, but she hasn't shown the drive and professionalism that players like Evert, Graf and Navratilova had, in my view. She is her own worst enemy in the context of the GOAT discussion.

Yes, facts/numbers are there for everyone to see. There are numerous stats that Serena are behind.

Most GS titles
player total
1 Steffi Graf 22
2 Serena Williams 20
3 Martina Navratilova 18
3 Chris Evert 18
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
2 Martina Navrátilová 32
3 Steffi Graf 31
4 Serena Williams 23
5 Evonne Goolagong 18
6 Venus Williams 14
7 Monica Seles 13
8 Margaret Court 12
8 Martina Hingis 12
8 Billie Jean Moffitt 12

Consecutive GS finals

1. Steffi Graf 13
2. Martina Navratilova 11
3. Margaret Court 6
3. Chris Evert 6
3. Monica Seles 6
6. Steffi Graf 5
6. Martina Hingis 5
8. Martina Navratilova 4
8. Chris Evert 4
8. Arantxa Sánchez 4
8. Serena Williams 4
8. Venus Williams 4
8. Justine Henin 4

Most single titles

Rank Player Singles
1 Martina Navratilova 167
2 Chris Evert 157
3 Steffi Graf 107
4 Margaret Court 101
5 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 68
6 Billie Jean King 67
7 Serena Williams 66
8 Virginia Wade 55
= Lindsay Davenport 55
10 Monica Seles 53

Most weeks at #1

Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Chris Evert 260
4 Serena Williams 243*
5 Martina Hingis 209
6 Monica Seles 178
7 Justine Henin 117
8 Lindsay Davenport 98
9 Caroline Wozniacki 67
10 Victoria Azarenka 51

Consecutive weeks at #1

1 Steffi Graf 186
2 Martina Navratilova 156
3 Serena Williams 120*
4 Chris Evert 113
5 Monica Seles 91
6 Martina Navratilova 90
7 Steffi Graf 87
8 Martina Hingis 80
9 Chris Evert 76
10 Martina Hingis 73

Year end No. 1 players

player year
1 Steffi Graf 8
2 Martina Navratilova 7
3 Chris Evert 5
4 Lindsay Davenport 4
4 Serena Williams 4
6 Justine Henin 3
6 Martina Hingis 3
6 Monica Seles 3
9 Caroline Wozniacki 2
10 Jelena Jankovic 1
10 Victoria Azarenka 1

Year-End Championships

1. Martina Navratilova 8
2. Steffi Graf 5
2. Serena Williams 5
4. Chris Evert 4
5. Monica Seles 3
6. Kim Clijsters 3
7. Gabriela Sabatini 2
8. Martina Hingis 2
9. Evonne Goolagong Cawley 2
10. Justine Henin 2

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 Serena Williams* 715-121 85.52
6 Monica Seles 595-122 82.98
7 Justine Henin 503-109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695-155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704-165 81.01

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 Serena Williams 677

Most match winning streak(all surfaces)

Rank Player Matches
1 Martina Navratilova 74
2 Steffi Graf 66
3 Martina Navratilova 58
4 Margaret Court 57
5 Chris Evert 55
6 Martina Navratilova 54
7 Steffi Graf 46
8 Steffi Graf 45
9 Steffi Graf 44
10 Martina Navratilova 41

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 Serena Williams 95.1
10 Chris Evert 94.9

Winning Streaks

1. Martina Navratilova 74
2. Steffi Graf 66
3. Martina Navratilova 58
4. Chris Evert 56
5. Martina Navratilova 54
6. Steffi Graf 46
7. Steffi Graf 45
8. Martina Navratilova 41
9. Martina Navratilova 39
10. Martina Navratilova 38

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 - Sharapova (2003-2013)
4. 11 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970-1980)
4. 11 - Virginia Wade (1968-1978 )
7. 9 - Sandra Cecchini (1984-1992)
7. 9 - Margaret Court (1968-1976)
7. 9 - Lindsay Davenport (1993-2001)
7. 9 - Conchita Martinez (1988-1996)
7. 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)
12. 12 - Martina Hingis (1997)
16. 11 - Tracy Austin (1980)
16. 11 - Chris Evert (1977)
16. 11 - Steffi Graf (1987, 1988 )
16. 11 - Martina Navratilova (1978, 1979)
16. 11 - Serena Williams (2013)
 
Last edited:

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Yeah like Radwanska, Ivanovic, Halep are quite similar in quality to Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori and such (in their gender of course). Serena's opponent has been Sharapova in a full decade and briefly it was Azarenka for a couple of years. She has no competition and yet she loses sets and matches even to some unknown players.
Tennis players get upset. Even the great ChrissieMartinaSteffi got upset by unknown players. Again, name an era in the WTA that was greater than two players deep.
 

ARFED

Professional
NadalAgassi, unquestioned worst troll of 2015?

There are fruit flies that have a longer life span than this guy has in the forum
 

newpball

Legend
It must pain TMF to update that tiresome "List".

How many Slams Serena has now?
Lol, it just got updated to 20 but perhaps TMF should have saved his energy and update straight to 21 after Wimbledon? :mrgreen:

I suppose in theory we could have a new all time GS open era record at the AO 2016 and at the FO 2016 a GS record ever!

:grin:
 
Last edited:

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Lol, it just got updated to 20 but perhaps TMF should have saved his energy and update straight to 21 after Wimbledon? :mrgreen:

I suppose in theory we could have a new all time GS open era record at the AO 2016 and at the FO 2016 a GS record ever!

:grin:
Once Serena equals or surpass Graf, Grand Slams will be rendered meaningless. Serena is becoming the Hank Aaron of Tennis.
 

President

Legend
TMF just might be the worst poster on this forum, and that is saying something. Definitely the poster with the most obvious agenda(s), at least. Consistently bad for 6 years, and still going strong :)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Once Serena equals or surpass Graf, Grand Slams will be rendered meaningless. Serena is becoming the Hank Aaron of Tennis.
Everything is meaningful. That's include slam titles plus performance, ranking, performance at atp/wta events, records, etc...

You will have to address that to people who say otherwise(e.g. Grand Slam feat is the only criteria to qualify for goat).
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Everything is meaningful. That's include slam titles plus performance, ranking, performance at atp/wta events, records, etc...

You will have to address that to people who say otherwise(e.g. Grand Slam feat is the only criteria to qualify for goat).
You mean like winning percentage in Slam Finals?
 

AngieB

Banned
The Seles stabbing seems to be the go-to argument for people who desperately want Williams to be GOAT (although there is no such thing;
#Absolutely not. I've not once mentioned that incident from 20 years ago because #Serena has the unique opportunity to surpass both #Steffi and #Margaret. #Seles is irrelevant.

#Serena is playing for her second #SerenaSlam, possibly for a #CYGS within (8) weeks. She holds every GS event (3) times over +. Given her level of dominance, she will likely end her career as the most accomplished #ITF-sanctioned GS singles champion. That in itself uniquely qualifies #Serena. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
#Absolutely not. I've not once mentioned that incident from 20 years ago because #Serena has the unique opportunity to surpass both #Steffi and #Margaret. #Seles is irrelevant.

#Serena is playing for her second #SerenaSlam, possibly for a #CYGS within (8) weeks. She holds every GS event (3) times over +. Given her level of dominance, she will likely end her career as the most accomplished #ITF-sanctioned GS singles champion. That in itself uniquely qualifies #Serena. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
I wasn't talking about you.
 

AngieB

Banned
But to you everything is a minor except winning the slam. To the ITF, everything count and that's why Nadal didn't win the 2013 ITF award despite he won 2 slams.


Seems like ITF follow the same principle as the international panel of tennis experts.

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)
The "International Panel of Tennis Experts" you reference refer are a group of people gathered by a US cable television channel to judge the totality of tennis history. Tennis history says, "No, thank you." The #ITHOF and #ITF institutions do not depend upon The Tennis Channel to make decisions about their organizations (#PTL). Not that I'm surprised you would illuminate such a poor example of tennis history, as you continue to use #Wikipedia as your tennis bible, in spite of it being a user-edited, unverified source of information.

The #ITF and #ITHOF have rarely strayed beyond their base requirements for award. I've noted (2) rare occasions they did (2013 was one for the ITF), however, it is not the norm for either institution, and any reference made that they normally stray is without merit and invalid. Not that I'm surprised you would attempt to soil both institutions. You do it everyday with your unverified #Wikipedia lists. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 

AngieB

Banned
Yes, facts/numbers are there for everyone to see. There are numerous stats that Serena are behind.

Most GS titles
player total

8 Martina Hingis 80
9 Chris Evert 76
10 Martina Hingis 73

Year end No. 1 players

player year
1 Steffi Graf 8

9 Caroline Wozniacki 2
10 Jelena Jankovic 1
10 Victoria Azarenka 1

Year-End Championships

1. Martina Navratilova 8
2. Steffi Graf 5
2. Serena
7. Gabriela Sabatini 2
8. Martina Hingis 2
9. Evonne Goolagong Cawley 2
10. Justine Henin 2

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-
7 Justine Henin 503-109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695-155 81.76
9 Evonne
7. 9 - Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (1988-1996)

Most singles titles won in a year


4. 16 - Chris Evert (1974, 1975)
4. 16 - Martina Navratilova (1983)
6. 15 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970)
6. 15 - Martina Navratilova (1982)
8. 14 - )
12. 12 - Chris Evert (1973, 1976)
12. 12 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971)
12. 12 - Martina Navratilova (1985)
12. 12 - Martina Hingis (1997)
16. 11 - Tracy Austin (1980)
16. 11 - Chris Evert (1977)
16. 11 - Steffi Graf (1987, 1988 )
16. 11 - Martina Navratilova (1978, 1979)
16. 11 - Serena Williams (2013)
Your incomplete #Wikipedia-generated list omits 80+ years of tennis history prior to the #OpenEra. #OpenEra-only lists are not an accurate picture of tennis history and should be ignored during serious discussions related to all-time greats. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Your incomplete #Wikipedia-generated list omits 80+ years of tennis history prior to the #OpenEra. #OpenEra-only lists are not an accurate picture of tennis history and should be ignored during serious discussions related to all-time greats. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
No other sport's fans play that game. Boxing, baseball, football. golf--all consider the entire history (and as part of its legacy and impact as a sport), not a history sectioned off to make certain players appear better than they are. If their record is worth anything, it will stand against all years, not just a few.
 

pat200

Semi-Pro
my favorite of all time is Steffi. Having said that, what Serena is achieving is phenomenal. Weak era or whatever, to win a grand slam is to win 7 matches against the top players in the world at the moment. It is not like she needs to just play one or two matches to win the slam like they used to do 100+ years ago, or playing 3-4 matches at a slam where none of the world's best go to. Whether she will surpass Steffi or not, she already established o many records that we are lucky to witness, just like i did with Steffi, Navratilova and Evert. All those ladies were out of this world players in their eras, as well as Court, Lenglen, Wills, Connelly and many more. Watching some older ladies play on youtube is such a thrill. Serena's mental strength is what sets her apart from all the players on tour nowadays and that is what differentiates a true legend from the rest of the wannabees, a skill she shares with all those legends before her. I am so excited to see her break more records before she bows out. All these ladies' place in history is secured forever.
 

DerekNoleFam1

Hall of Fame
If she wins Wimbledon she gets a 2nd "Serena Slam" - ie winning and holding all 4 Majors in a Non-Calendar year - that alone would be astonishing.
The CYGS no doubt puts her at the top of the WTA tour ever, only Margaret Court would have more Slams - but she won many in the amateur era.
 

The-Champ

Legend
Your incomplete #Wikipedia-generated list omits 80+ years of tennis history prior to the #OpenEra. #OpenEra-only lists are not an accurate picture of tennis history and should be ignored during serious discussions related to all-time greats. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst

Well at least Mr. Wiki is no longer posting that 100 greatest list made by Tennis Channel, when Serena only had 13 majors, as evidence that trumps all.
 

newpball

Legend
Lol, it just got updated to 20 but perhaps TMF should have saved his energy and update straight to 21 after Wimbledon? :mrgreen:

I suppose in theory we could have a new all time GS open era record at the AO 2016 and at the FO 2016 a GS record ever!
We need another update. :p

:D
 

70後

Hall of Fame
While many already have Serena as the female GOAT, and at worst some have her 2nd to Graf, if she completes the Grand Slam, matching both Graf's 22 and her Grand Slam feat at the U.S Open, I think it will be beyond dispute of anyone (other than the most delusional and bitter) Serena has ascended to unquestioned GOAT status. Considering of course the stain on Graf's numbers for an obvious reason. The tough thing for the haters is that she has a good shot, atleast 55%, of doing it.
I miss NA. :)
 

70後

Hall of Fame
Evert herself called Serena the GOAT awhile back. She herself would laugh at your assertion that she could even possibly be above Serena.

As for weak competition, in comparision to these others dont make me laugh. Serena atleast had really tough competition in the first half of her career, winning a double digit # of slams. Graf's competition after Seles was stabbed was NOTHING, even worse than today, and her big competition early on was 32 or 34 year old Navratilova and Evert.
Evert faced a decent field on grass early in her career, at a time she was winning most of her slams on clay (including U.S Opens which back then were on clay), then she and Martina faced only one another for the next 10 years after that with Goolagong, Wade, King, all fading out of any relevance/retiring, other than a blip of Austin, and Hana's two spurts of form (which had a huge hole from late 81-mid 85 where she had none).

You can have indeed really tough competition but no rival. And rivals without competition otherwise. The latter is how I see the 80's women and early 90's.

Of course what happened after the stabbing from 93 - 99 was a case of no rival and no competition.

2002-2007 WTA was really strong with both rivals (multi) and tough competition.

So you've got a grid for WTA :

No rival, lots of competition; 2012-present

no competition, one rival; 82-86

no rival, no competition; 93 post stabbing - 99

multi rivals, lots of competition. 2002-2007
 
Last edited:
Top