Serena Williams -- where does she ranked compared to the other greats of the open era

[BTURNER]

If Navratilova did not emerge Evert would have retired earlier. She says so herself in many interviews. Most rank her behind Serena and Graf not only due to less dominance and less slam wins, but since prime to prime she would lose in a series of matches, virtually every expert agrees on that. The same is true vs Navratilova, proven by their actual existing rivalry, hence why most rank her behind her as well.

You seem to be ranking Seles super high based on nothing but what ifs and her shortened (by circumstances) peak. Which is fair if that is your perrogative for rankings. Well in that case Connolly would have to rank even higher you are trying to rank Seles for sure as her peak was far more dominant than Seles. She won all 9 slams she played 51-54. Also this was in the era 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, which hypothetically had Seles played in she maybe wins like 2 majors (both French Opens) at best. Like Seles she is a what if case with her peak terminated by an unforseen event at age 19. Unlike Seles she did not get the chance to return to tennis at all.

Put all your 'would have's' in the closet. And stop thinking that polled 'experts' have some secret wisdom to impart here. They are not any smarter than we are. Here's your problem. If you only discuss the slams, and you only discuss singles, there is NO WAY, that Evert's record is not better than Martina. Statistically she got exactly the same number of slams, reached more finals than Martina did, and she did it in a more condensed time frame.

Slam Career win/loss % 1.Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of majors champ won 1. Court 51.1% 2 .Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reached final 1.Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion 1.Court 83% 2.Graf 73.1% 43.Serena 71.9%. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of major reached SF's 1. Evert 92.9% 2.Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion 1.Court 86.6% 2.Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major Reached QF's 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5.Serena 74.1%
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%

Keep in mind that every single one of Martina's wins over Evert, every single one of those Wimbledon and US open finals and both those RG matches, is already included in those statistics. And she still has poorer numbers in 8 of these categories. Notice too, that there is not one single category where Martina rates in the top two, and there is only one category where she rates in the top three!

Martina took more time to win her first slam, she had a brief slump in 1980-1981, and she hung around way too long past 1987, with very little to show for it. That leads to a lot of baggage that her career has to carry, which Evert does not. At least Serena has something more to show for her extra baggage.

If you want to make a case for Martina as GOAT, You have to broaden the discussion past singles and past the majors or you have to depend on 'Wimbledon bias' to get you there. Court, Graf and Evert all acquired what they acquired, without all those lackluster or subpar matches, to weigh those results down.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Top 5. I’ll always have graf at number 1 until someone else gets the Golden Calendar Grand Slam like she did in ‘88. Serena couldn’t even win a regular calendar grand slam

Since it’s a best of 3. A calendar slam is mandatory for GOAT consideration

 

[BTURNER]

Top 5. I’ll always have graf at number 1 until someone else gets the Golden Calendar Grand Slam like she did in ‘88. Serena couldn’t even win a regular calendar grand slam

Since it’s a best of 3. A calendar slam is mandatory for GOAT consideration

If I had to pick a GOAT, and I did it based on singles and the slams alone, I would probably pick Graf, but I sure don't get there based on her golden calendar slam. The seasonal slam itself is so arbitrary. The last thing I care about is if the first of your string is the Aussie, and the last of the string is the US Open because it fits neatly into a calender year. I also didn't care if the first one was RG, and the last was the Aussie when it was the last slam of the year. I am more impressed with Martina's 6 in a row over two years, than Steffi or Margarets four in a row that happen to coincide with that year.

I choose Graf because while she may not have had the highest or extensive of peak play in slam play, and she may not have been the most consistent throughout her career in slam play, she combines both traits to near perfection. If you admire peaks, you have to admire Graf. If you admire consistency, you have to admire Graf. If you are looking for someone who plays as well on grass, or hard courts or clay, you have to admire Graf. She's a perfect marriage of often conflicting traits.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

A calendar slam is mandatory for GOAT consideration

Its mandatory for every GOAT conversation. The sport's zenith--its supreme achievement is not some random stat, trivia, or that which innumerable others have won. That said, we live in the era of revisionist history, where attempts to prop up players who were easily surpassed either by majors count or lacked the talent/court insight to earn the supreme achievement that is the Grand Slam. This is not unique to tennis.

 

[pierceforehands]

Put all your 'would have's' in the closet. And stop thinking that polled 'experts' have some secret wisdom to impart here. They are not any smarter than we are. Here's your problem. If you only discuss the slams, and you only discuss singles, there is NO WAY, that Evert's record is not better than Martina. Statistically she got exactly the same number of slams, reached more finals than Martina did, and she did it in a more condensed time frame.

Slam Career win/loss % 1.Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of majors champ won 1. Court 51.1% 2 .Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reached final 1.Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion 1.Court 83% 2.Graf 73.1% 43.Serena 71.9%. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of major reached SF's 1. Evert 92.9% 2.Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion 1.Court 86.6% 2.Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major Reached QF's 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5.Serena 74.1%
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%

Keep in mind that every single one of Martina's wins over Evert, every single one of those Wimbledon and US open finals and both those RG matches, is already included in those statistics. And she still has poorer numbers in 8 of these categories. Notice too, that there is not one single category where Martina rates in the top two, and there is only one category where she rates in the top three!

Martina took more time to win her first slam, she had a brief slump in 1980-1981, and she hung around way too long past 1987, with very little to show for it. That leads to a lot of baggage that her career has to carry, which Evert does not. At least Serena has something more to show for her extra baggage.

If you want to make a case for Martina as GOAT, You have to broaden the discussion past singles and past the majors or you have to depend on 'Wimbledon bias' to get you there. Court, Graf and Evert all acquired what they acquired, without all those lackluster or subpar matches, to weigh those results down.

You raise some valid points in favor of Evert vs Navratilova, and I agree if you went strictly by singles stats (all singles stats, not just the glossier ones) she probably would have the edge. However in practical terms you know all casual tennis fans, and even most hardcore tennis fans won't be picking who they rank higher by ultra examining every available consistency and sub grouping stat that exists. I am no Navratilova fan, her psychotic fans who are 2nd only to Seles fans in their insanity are a huge turn off, and always rooted hard for Evert when they played. However to most people Navratilova will rank higher due to owning Evert so hardcore (the 13 match win streak I referred to) when Evert, while not peak, was still mostly in her prime, and due to having the best record ever at the perceived Cathedral of tennis- Wimbledon. For another example why do you think Federer is still heavily in the GOAT conversation with Djokovic, and widely seen as above Nadal, despite an inferior record to both in nearly every category at this point, especialy Djokovic. It is due to the prestige of his Wimbledon record, which is superior to Djokovic, and light years superior to Nadal. Like it or not that event is still given more value. I have seen numerous major tennis publications that ranked Venus above Seles, and virtually every single one ranks her above Henin, despite that on paper Seles has a better record, and arguably Henin does too. Why is that? Again the higher acknowledgement given to Wimbledon where Venus one of the all time greats at the event blows away Seles and Henin, who both sucked on grass, and failed to win even a single Wimbledon ever (PS- which Seles most likely fails to do even without the stabbing if you want to go there).

So Navratilova's Wimbledon record, and the much higher prestige given to that, plus her total dominance over Chris for a 2-3 year stretch still in Evert's prime or atleast semi prime, will put Navratilova above Evert for most people, rightly or wrongly. That plus her greater dominance at her peak. Her 3 year dominant stretch of 82-84, particularly the 2 top years of 83-84, and her 5 year stretch of 82-86 both easily eclipse Evert's very best 2 or 3 year stretch, or her best 5 year stretch. And yes I know Evert wasn't playing all the slams in the 70s, so I am not talking strictly slam wins. I am talking losing only 2 matches a year often for Navratilova, something Evert even in her best years of say 74-77 was nowhere near duplicating.

That is not even getting into doubles, which gives Navratilova some bonus points vs people like Evert, and even other greats who barely played or did anything in doubles like Graf, to some people.

 

[BTURNER]

You raise some valid points in favor of Evert vs Navratilova, and I agree if you went strictly by singles stats (all singles stats, not just the glossier ones) she probably would have the edge. However in practical terms you know all casual tennis fans, and even most hardcore tennis fans won't be picking who they rank higher by ultra examining every available consistency and sub grouping stat that exists. I am no Navratilova fan, her psychotic fans who are 2nd only to Seles fans in their insanity are a huge turn off, and always rooted hard for Evert when they played. However to most people Navratilova will rank higher due to owning Evert so hardcore (the 13 match win streak I referred to) when Evert, while not peak, was still mostly in her prime, and due to having the best record ever at the perceived Cathedral of tennis- Wimbledon. For another example why do you think Federer is still heavily in the GOAT conversation with Djokovic, and widely seen as above Nadal, despite an inferior record to both in nearly every category at this point, especialy Djokovic. It is due to the prestige of his Wimbledon record, which is superior to Djokovic, and light years superior to Nadal. Like it or not that event is still given more value. I have seen numerous major tennis publications that ranked Venus above Seles, and virtually every single one ranks her above Henin, despite that on paper Seles has a better record, and arguably Henin does too. Why is that? Again the higher acknowledgement given to Wimbledon where Venus one of the all time greats at the event blows away Seles and Henin, who both sucked on grass, and failed to win even a single Wimbledon ever (PS- which Seles most likely fails to do even without the stabbing if you want to go there).

So Navratilova's Wimbledon record, and the much higher prestige given to that, plus her total dominance over Chris for a 2-3 year stretch still in Evert's prime or atleast semi prime, will put Navratilova above Evert for most people, rightly or wrongly. That plus her greater dominance at her peak. Her 3 year dominant stretch of 82-84, particularly the 2 top years of 83-84, and her 5 year stretch of 82-86 both easily eclipse Evert's very best 2 or 3 year stretch, or her best 5 year stretch. And yes I know Evert wasn't playing all the slams in the 70s, so I am not talking strictly slam wins. I am talking losing only 2 matches a year often for Navratilova, something Evert even in her best years of say 74-77 was nowhere near duplicating.

That is not even getting into doubles, which gives Navratilova some bonus points vs people like Evert, and even other greats who barely played or did anything in doubles like Graf, to some people.

We are going to keep talking right past each other. Its not your argument that I object to, or even your opinion per se. You are way too invested in telling me what 'most people' think. It's completely unpersuasive around here. You are hiding in the middle of the herd, Piece. Just own your own thoughts. I have never wanted to be part of a cattle drive.

 

[Kiam]

If Navratilova did not emerge Evert would have retired earlier. She says so herself in many interviews. Most rank her behind Serena and Graf not only due to less dominance and less slam wins, but since prime to prime she would lose in a series of matches, virtually every expert agrees on that. The same is true vs Navratilova, proven by their actual existing rivalry, hence why most rank her behind her as well.

You seem to be ranking Seles super high based on nothing but what ifs and her shortened (by circumstances) peak. Which is fair if that is your perrogative for rankings. Well in that case Connolly would have to rank even higher you are trying to rank Seles for sure as her peak was far more dominant than Seles. She won all 9 slams she played 51-54. Also this was in the era 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, which hypothetically had Seles played in she maybe wins like 2 majors (both French Opens) at best. Like Seles she is a what if case with her peak terminated by an unforseen event at age 19. Unlike Seles she did not get the chance to return to tennis at all.

 

[Kiam]

If Navratilova did not emerge Evert would have retired earlier. She says so herself in many interviews. Most rank her behind Serena and Graf not only due to less dominance and less slam wins, but since prime to prime she would lose in a series of matches, virtually every expert agrees on that. The same is true vs Navratilova, proven by their actual existing rivalry, hence why most rank her behind her as well.

You seem to be ranking Seles super high based on nothing but what ifs and her shortened (by circumstances) peak. Which is fair if that is your perrogative for rankings. Well in that case Connolly would have to rank even higher you are trying to rank Seles for sure as her peak was far more dominant than Seles. She won all 9 slams she played 51-54. Also this was in the era 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, which hypothetically had Seles played in she maybe wins like 2 majors (both French Opens) at best. Like Seles she is a what if case with her peak terminated by an unforseen event at age 19. Unlike Seles she did not get the chance to return to tennis at all.

I don't rank Seles that high. I just responded when you questioned someone else who did. I explained that there is a valid reason to rank someone based on her peak, as opposed to her total career, especially in the case of Monica, whose fate was in the hands of a Steffi supporter. I try to be objective, and base the rankings on a combination of total career results and peak results. I give every pro era equal consideration, and allow extra credit for King and Court, whose careers straddled both pro and amateur eras. I couldn't care less about what other publications say about prestige of one slam over another, or what most people think. My rankings go like this:: Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Court, Serena. Martina won the most matches andvthe mostvtournaments by far. She was a top,player at 19, and still near the top at 38. She transitioned from wood to fast technology smoothly. She had the best peak, and the second most weeks at number one. She missed ten slams at her peak because they were not as prestigious then, and ther were more important and lucrative events in the states that she participated in, which helped promote women's tennis. Still, she won 18 slams, andcreached more finals, semis and quarters than Serena.
The same argument about slams holds true for Chris Evert, who won the second most matches, and the second most tournaments, and had the second highest winning percentage at 90 percent. To play for so long, yet still have such a high winning percentage is amazing. Steffi quit at a much younger age, but did not win at the high rate that Chris did, despite the fact that her main rival was incapacitated. That's why Implace her third, despite her weeks at number one. She won about 400 fewer matches than Chris, and 500 fewer than Martina, and many fewer tournaments, So, even though her peak value rivals Martina for number one, her career value is significantly less.
I have Margaret fourth, only because half her matches were played in the amateur era, which takes some of the shine off them. She won matches at an astounding rate, better than 91 percent, despite giving birth, and having to travel from Australia. There is a valid argument for any of these four as number one.
Serena didn't win nearly as many matches or tournaments as the others, but she did win 23 slams, and two 4-peats, and she played in a really competitive era, when tennis was a lucrative world-wide sport, with support to help top players of every income level getvto the top. She had the most breath-taking game....the best serve, the best return, the hardest groundstrokes, fantastic athleticism, etc, but did not have good coaching until her 30s, when she really blossomed for a few years.

 

[BTURNER]

I don't rank Seles that high. I just responded when you questioned someone else who did. I explained that there is a valid reason to rank someone based on her peak, as opposed to her total career, especially in the case of Monica, whose fate was in the hands of a Steffi supporter. I try to be objective, and base the rankings on a combination of total career results and peak results. I give every pro era equal consideration, and allow extra credit for King and Court, whose careers straddled both pro and amateur eras. I couldn't care less about what other publications say about prestige of one slam over another, or what most people think. My rankings go like this:: Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Court, Serena. Martina won the most matches andvthe mostvtournaments by far. She was a top,player at 19, and still near the top at 38. She transitioned from wood to fast technology smoothly. She had the best peak, and the second most weeks at number one. She missed ten slams at her peak because they were not as prestigious then, and ther were more important and lucrative events in the states that she participated in, which helped promote women's tennis. Still, she won 18 slams, andcreached more finals, semis and quarters than Serena.
The same argument about slams holds true for Chris Evert, who won the second most matches, and the second most tournaments, and had the second highest winning percentage at 90 percent. To play for so long, yet still have such a high winning percentage is amazing. Steffi quit at a much younger age, but did not win at the high rate that Chris did, despite the fact that her main rival was incapacitated. That's why Implace her third, despite her weeks at number one. She won about 400 fewer matches than Chris, and 500 fewer than Martina, and many fewer tournaments, So, even though her peak value rivals Martina for number one, her career value is significantly less.
I have Margaret fourth, only because half her matches were played in the amateur era, which takes some of the shine off them. She won matches at an astounding rate, better than 91 percent, despite giving birth, and having to travel from Australia. There is a valid argument for any of these four as number one.
Serena didn't win nearly as many matches or tournaments as the others, but she did win 23 slams, and two 4-peats, and she played in a really competitive era, when tennis was a lucrative world-wide sport, with support to help top players of every income level getvto the top. She had the most breath-taking game....the best serve, the best return, the hardest groundstrokes, fantastic athleticism, etc, but did not have good coaching until her 30s, when she really blossomed for a few years.

In my opinion, Steffi career win loss percentage, and her lack of longevity were both directly related to her too early arrival on the WTA circuit. there is no way a girl as young as 13, 14, and 15 can possibly hang with adult tennis players. Those early matches stress the young immature body, and the young mind, without any real potential benefit. It' just too early, and the fault there is all Peter's. I think her numbers later in her career would have been better had she waited until 15 or 16 to join the tour.

 

[Gizo]

It could be argued that 73 WTA titles overall is a relatively low return for Serena, for the ultra-high standards of one of the greatest players that has ever lived.

Clearly it was completely unrealistic to expect her or any other player in later eras to come remotely close to Navratilova's or Evert's title counts, due to trends in the sport with increasing physicality, prize money (which has continued to surge at majors relative to standard tour events and has meant that top players haven't needed to enter as many events year after year), noticeably increased depth throughout the top 50, 100, 200 etc. But maybe she could have been expected to at least be closer to Graf's title count of 107, or the 100 title mark given how long her career spanned.

After her title win at Charleston in April 2008, all of her title wins before her very serious injury / pulmonary embolism during the summer of 2010 which sidelined her for a year, came in majors or the YEC. That was a weird part of her career. Then after she returned and when she was in her 30s, she became far more profilic at 'lesser' tournaments' for a few years.

Then again outside the majors, Olympics and YEC, she still won most of the biggest tournaments available to her during her career multiple times; Miami x 8, Indian Wells x 2, Canada x 2, Cincinnati x 2, Rome x 4, Madrid x 2, Beijing x 2, Charleston x 3 etc. I think the biggest tournaments that she entered multiple times during her career but didn't win, were Dubai and Berlin both of which she played in 3 times. Berlin was removed from the calendar after 2008. In the (entertaining) 2002 final there, her and Henin were locked at 5-5 in a decisive 3rd set tiebreak, before Henin produced a stunning drop volley to set up her match point.

For what it's worth, I do think that she clearly faced a stronger standard of competition in the first 4-5 rounds at majors, and in the early rounds of tournaments in general, compared to any of the preceeding all-time greats. Over the time in women's tennis, IMO the overall standard of early round matches has progressively improved, and quite significantly.

 

[Kiam]

In my opinion, Steffi career win loss percentage, and her lack of longevity were both directly related to her too early arrival on the WTA circuit. there is no way a girl as young as 13, 14, and 15 can possibly hang with adult tennis players. Those early matches stress the young immature body, and the young mind, without any real potential benefit. It' just too early, and the fault there is all Peter's. I think her numbers later in her career would have been better had she waited until 15 or 16 to join the tour.

That's a very good point. I will have to go back and look at her early won-loss ratio. Monica played at 15, and might have also played at 14, I'm not sure. Jennifer C got to the finals of her first tournament at 13! Chris played at 15.

 

[Kiam]

That's a very good point. I will have to go back and look at her early won-loss ratio. Monica played at 15, and might have also played at 14, I'm not sure. Jennifer C got to the finals of her first tournament at 13! Chris played at 15.

She won the Olympic demonstration tournament in 1984, the youngest player in it, having just turned 15....she was number 6 in the world soon after, so she was ready to play.

 

[Kiam]

It could be argued that 73 WTA titles overall is a relatively low return for Serena, for the ultra-high standards of one of the greatest players that has ever lived.

Clearly it was completely unrealistic to expect her or any other player in later eras to come remotely close to Navratilova's or Evert's title counts, due to trends in the sport with increasing physicality, prize money (which has continued to surge at majors relative to standard tour events and has meant that top players haven't needed to enter as many events year after year), noticeably increased depth throughout the top 50, 100, 200 etc. But maybe she could have been expected to at least be closer to Graf's title count of 107, or the 100 title mark given how long her career spanned.

After her title win at Charleston in April 2008, all of her title wins before her very serious injury / pulmonary embolism during the summer of 2010 which sidelined her for a year, came in majors or the YEC. That was a weird part of her career. Then after she returned and when she was in her 30s, she became far more profilic at 'lesser' tournaments' for a few years.

Then again outside the majors, Olympics and YEC, she still won most of the biggest tournaments available to her during her career multiple times; Miami x 8, Indian Wells x 2, Canada x 2, Cincinnati x 2, Rome x 4, Madrid x 2, Beijing x 2, Charleston x 3 etc. I think the biggest tournaments that she entered multiple times during her career but didn't win, were Dubai and Berlin both of which she played in 3 times. Berlin was removed from the calendar after 2008. In the (entertaining) 2002 final there, her and Henin were locked at 5-5 in a decisive 3rd set tiebreak, before Henin produced a stunning drop volley to set up her match point.

For what it's worth, I do think that she clearly faced a stronger standard of competition in the first 4-5 rounds at majors, and in the early rounds of tournaments in general, compared to any of the preceeding all-time greats. Over the time in women's tennis, IMO the overall standard of early round matches has progressively improved, and quite significantly.

Fair points. But she didn't switch to the new polyester strings for years when all the other players had switched. She let herself get over weight for a while. And she had no strategy except bash bash bash until Patrick M showed her a thing or two. She should have won 120 tournaments or more. IF Federer could win 104, she should have passed that easily.....she was that much better than her opponents in terms of serve, speed, athleticsim, return, and groundstrokes....sticking with her father as her only coach was a big mistake.

 

[pierceforehands]

Serena's title count is too low, I agree, but all the main contenders have a significant flaw. Evert is being owned by peak Navratilova, and never

That's a very good point. I will have to go back and look at her early won-loss ratio. Monica played at 15, and might have also played at 14, I'm not sure. Jennifer C got to the finals of her first tournament at 13! Chris played at 15.

Neither Seles or Capriati lasted past 30 either though, and both were well past their best long before 30. And you can't put that down to just the stabbing when Seles was declining from earlier stages even in her second career due to age and injuries well before 30. So those aren't exactly counterpoints to Steffi suffering from joining the tour at 13. All the girls who did this are stupid and none excelled well into their 30s. Hingis came nowhere near as well, in fact her prime was done at about 19 and her first retirement was at only 21, then her second failed comeback where she didn't do much at 25 or 26. And don't even get me started on Jaeger and Austin. Graf did the best in that regard of the ridiculously early tour players, but it likely prevented her from having an even longer career and maintaining her prime form even longer.

 

[Hard Court]

If we want to, we can cherry pick criticism of all these players expect for those that we like. which is what we do.
Don't want to pick Evert? Just pick two years of her long rivalry with Navratilova when she was dominated.
Don't want to go with Navratilova, pick a loss here or there or say that she didn't won enough Grand slams.
(Just pretend that Evert and Navratilova didn't keep each other from winning more.)
Don't want to go with Court? Just don't count the Australian Opens without taking a hard look. Or don't count her wins before the Open Ear without looking into it.
If the number helps the player you like, it counts. If the number favor someone else, it doesn't count.

I just think we should try to as fair as possible and realize that sometimes we like (i.e. the player that we grew up) with is better than someone else and sometimes not.

 

[BTURNER]

That's a very good point. I will have to go back and look at her early won-loss ratio. Monica played at 15, and might have also played at 14, I'm not sure. Jennifer C got to the finals of her first tournament at 13! Chris played at 15.

When I look at career stats, I hold the player responsible for those decisions. They decide when to come back from an injury. They decide when they retire. They are in charge of their career and they are in charge of deciding when they will walk onto the court, and when they wont. I can hold them accountable But when we are going much younger than 16, it gets really hard to say they really made the call as opposed to Dad and Mom. Parental influence is just so strong in those early teen years.

 

[Kiam]

I’m unable to find the exact number of matches that Steffi played at 14…..looks like she only played one match at 13. But the girls who aren’t on tour at 14 or 15 are playing just as much…..they are just playing on the Junior Circuit. Anyway, Chris played at 15, and kept playing for 20 years.

 

[BTURNER]

I’m unable to find the exact number of matches that Steffi played at 14…..looks like she only played one match at 13. But the girls who aren’t on tour at 14 or 15 are playing just as much…..they are just playing on the Junior Circuit. Anyway, Chris played at 15, and kept playing for 20 years.

Its not the amount of tennis played, its the quality of the results of the play that is so different. I am excluding all junior tennis results. With Evert, we are talking 1969 - 1970. Don't pay attention to words like 'semifinal' or Quarterfinal'. Here count the matches played before that loss. Here is the first example from 1969. Notice statistically that despite the reference to the 'Semifinal', Young Chrissie records one victory, and her second round was a loss. Now imagine what a series of tournaments like this over a couple of years does to her career win loss statistic?

1969:
Austin Smith Championships (Jan. 20-26; Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Ann Lentz 6-1, 6-2; SF lost to Mary Ann Eisel 7-5, 3-6, 6-1 (1 win, 1 loss)

Station WLOD Invitational (March; Lighthouse Point/Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Bonnie Smith 6-1, 6-0; 2R def. Pam Teeguarden 6-1, 6-1; QF def. Linda Tuero 6-0, 6-2; SF lost to Nancy Richey 6-3, 4-6, 6-2 (3 wins, 1 loss)

1970:
Station WLOD Invitational (March; Lighthouse Point/Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Bonnie Smith 6-1, 6-0; 2R def. Pam Teeguarden 6-1, 6-1; QF def. Linda Tuero 6-0, 6-2; SF lost to Nancy Richey 6-3, 4-6, 6-2 (3 wins, 1 loss)

Pennsylvania Grass Court Open Championships (Aug. 3-9; Merion/Haverford, PA, grass): 1R lost to Kerry Melville 6-4, 6-4 ( 0 wins, 1 loss)

Eastern Grass Court Championships (Aug. 24-30; South Orange, NJ; grass): 1R lost to Peaches Bartkowicz 6-2, 6-1 (0 wins, another loss)

Carolinas International Tennis Classic (Sept. 18-20; Charlotte, NC, clay): QF def. Françoise Durr 6-0, 6-1; SF def. Margaret Court 7-6, 7-6; F lost to Nancy Richey Gunter 6-4, 6-1 (2 wins, 1 loss)

yes there are some nice wins, but the average here is approximately one loss for every two wins. That is pretty ****ty percentage on the pro tour, isn't it? I hold tennis players responsible every match every win, every loss for their entire careers regardless of excuse, but it presupposes that they actually made the decision to play their matches. I think that gets dicey when we are talking about kids who are 13, 14, and 15.

With Graf, if I recall correctly, number of matches before 16 is longer. So my question is do we hold young girls accountable for the decision to 'walk onthat court and take their chance' if they did not really make an adult decision to walk on that court. You can't get legally emancipated at these ages even if you tried!

 

[Kiam]

9-6. 60 per cent.

 

[a10best]

1, Navratilova
2, Graf
3. Seles
4. Serena

My recollection of Serena's movement is she wouldn't be able to rally with Sele for that long. Seles dominated Graf and Steffi was quick and fit.
Graf was just dominant, speedy and relentless when she got a lead.
Martina Navratilova was also very dominant. Haven't seen older players so can't comment about BJK or Court.
This is based on racket technology and court surfaces until 2005.

 

[TennisLogic]

1

 

[Kiam]

I don’t think any of Serena’s. Ontemporaries had a winning h2h against her, assuming they played her at least 5 or 6 times. I don’t think Seles or Graf would have either. Serena’s game was just too big. Her serve and her return of serve were the best ever in the women’s game, and her groundstrokes were mor powerful than anyone’s.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Serena has a much superior return of serve to Graf on top of all that

not sure about this at all. match charting stats seem to favor Serena's 2nd return by a slight margin (due to clay skew and serve-return era considerations breaking the points won % tie) but 1st return seems to go pretty clearly to Graf even with those in mind. and i'd stand by those being fair representations considering the athletic and technical strengths of the two

 

[BTURNER]

I have watched very little of Serena. I recall the huge groundies and serves, and the reach at net. How did her movement compare with Martina and Steff?
Graf may have covered court better than any woman I ever saw!

 

[pierceforehands]

I have watched very little of Serena. I recall the huge groundies and serves, and the reach at net. How did her movement compare with Martina and Steff?
Graf may have covered court better than any woman I ever saw!

At her peak Serena was on par with Graf in speed, plus played better overall defense as I said. Some say Venus was slightly faster but I think most base that assumption on Venus's insane reach + combined with great speed, as she might get even a few more balls, but I think Serena in pure speed was atleast as fast as her as well.

Someone like like a10best probably began watching tennis a few years ago, so looks at Serena in her late 30s, and then compares her movement to Graf or Seles at their peak in videos he/she saw. Never mind that Graf and Seles were retired for almost 10 years by that same point, and someone like Seles who even at her peak was not some great mover would probably now move worse than say prime Davenport by her late 30s, the age everyone slows considerably from their peak.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

I mean I have never heard someone call Graf one of the best returners in history.

hardly anybody calls peak Federer one of the best (general) returners in history and yet he was, never mind even the looser claim that he (and Graf) were GOATed 1st (specifically) returners precisely due to their athleticism, footwork, and racket face control

While people mention Davenport, Seles, Serena, Venus, Evert, and sometimes Hingis in that category constantly

personally i'd go with Hingis, Evert, and Halep as the best all-around returners, but i'd want Graf on grass, Seles on clay, and Navratilova indoors

Serena does not work as hard on her return games in general as she holds easier than anyone, even moreso than Graf who herself is far above most others. So I could see Graf having better return game stats, but keep in mind that is also due to the more than the return of serfve itself. Graf makes fewer unforced errors on average and also works harder on return games than Serena often does.

these are pretty common arguments but they're frustratingly unfalsifiable and still say something about one's capabilities/limitations, particularly with the context that returning is definitionally not (primarily) within one's control. valuing such return peaks rather than overall return performance similarly has a good deal to do with one's clutchness and general level rather than just return skill

I forgot to mention there were hardly any woman in Graf's era who served well at all, while Serena's era was full of great servers, which also factors greatly into return game stats.

sure, but then this would mean the actual greatest returners we care about should be from the past couple decades, and that we should disqualify most of the candidates you named as statpadding in the same way. i think the stats remain directionally meaningful and pair well with my eye test

At her peak Serena was on par with Graf in speed, plus played better overall defense as I said. Some say Venus was slightly faster but I think most base that assumption on Venus's insane reach + combined with great speed, as she might get even a few more balls, but I think Serena in pure speed was atleast as fast as her as well

generally agree, though i'd say Venus was a tiny bit faster and that there was a footwork gap between Graf and Venus in the top tiers, and Serena below

 

[thrust]

As noted earlier, Connolly, Court and Graf are the unquestioned GOAT female tennis players. It is not now, nor will it ever be Evert, Navratilova or the woman who stands above them--Serena.

Serena is in the same league as: Connolly, Court and Graf, IMO

 

[a10best]

At her peak Serena was on par with Graf in speed, plus played better overall defense as I said. Some say Venus was slightly faster but I think most base that assumption on Venus's insane reach + combined with great speed, as she might get even a few more balls, but I think Serena in pure speed was atleast as fast as her as well.

Someone like like a10best probably began watching tennis a few years ago, so looks at Serena in her late 30s, and then compares her movement to Graf or Seles at their peak in videos he/she saw. Never mind that Graf and Seles were retired for almost 10 years by that same point, and someone like Seles who even at her peak was not some great mover would probably now move worse than say prime Davenport by her late 30s, the age everyone slows considerably from their peak.

It never stops with the baseless wild assumptions. Ok, I'll mirror back my assumptions. Was one of the fires so traumatic you became a lunatic or is it one of those weight loss drugs?
A little bit of research would do u some good so idiotic comments are minimized. Let's get this out the way. You're not AA. you're likely just a confused insecure person trolling with a second or third user acct. from 10-2024.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

First off Seles never dominated Graf. That is a ridiculous myth some seem to have. Even during Seles's dominance of 1991-early 1993 she had a losing (2-3) record vs Graf, including a loss on every surface, both her wins were 3 setters, one 10-8 in the 3rd, while 2 of Graf's 3 wins were easy straight sets, including a 6-2, 6-1 defeat in a slam final. She domianted the womens game yes, but not Graf specifically. And those who try and merge the two then you have to argue Federer dominated Nadal in 2005-2007 to give some idea how ridiculous that would sound. And this was even far from the best ever version of Graf to boot, about half as good as the Graf of years like 88, 89, 95, and 96 for instance, while of course the best ever version of Seles.

Quite accurate assessment. To this day, some insist on pushing easily debunked pro-Seles myths of the kind you picked apart. Monica Seles never dominated Graf, nor was she on her way to becoming a GOAT player like Graf, which--of course--was never going to happen without the Grand Slam, and as history shows, Seles was utterly incapable of winning Wimbledon, so her fate to claim a spot on the "Best of the Rest" list was guaranteed.

Second of all Graf has a weak, powerless backhand unlike Serena who has both a monstrous forehand and backhand, and her serve while excellent is still nowhere near Serena's as well.

Agreed about the backhand; Serena had one of the best backhands in tennis, and easily qualifies as one of the best returners in the history of women's tennis--far above Graf's, despite the latter being the overall superior player.

Attempting to rank Seles above Serena all time is beyond asinine, but it is atleast better than some other Serena haters who have tried ranking their other great white hopes of Serena's own era like Henin and even Maria Sharapova above her. Yes even after Serena beat Maria about 5000 times in a row. But hey Maria is white, just like for you I am sure it is a case of hey Monica is white, Serena ain't.

Agreed, and the evidence for such ridiculous acts of racial bias are to be found in Talk Tennis Warehouse's archives, and off-site, where the drooling, blood-lustful racial hatred of Serena rages on to the present, and its not uncommon to see such hate-fueled, woefully challenged attempts to rate the likes of Seles, Henin or Evert above the obviously superior Serena Williams.

At her peak Serena was on par with Graf in speed, plus played better overall defense as I said. Some say Venus was slightly faster but I think most base that assumption on Venus's insane reach + combined with great speed, as she might get even a few more balls, but I think Serena in pure speed was atleast as fast as her as well.

True.

Someone like like a10best probably began watching tennis a few years ago, so looks at Serena in her late 30s, and then compares her movement to Graf or Seles at their peak in videos he/she saw. Never mind that Graf and Seles were retired for almost 10 years by that same point, and someone like Seles who even at her peak was not some great mover would probably now move worse than say prime Davenport by her late 30s, the age everyone slows considerably from their peak.

Historically mismatched comparisons of the kind you cite: older Serena vs. younger Seles and/or Graf is one the more obviously desperate, intellectually bankrupt ploys attempted by the usual suspects--its only result being hard proof of their ignorance and agenda because of one, distinctive trait about Serena Williams. The guilty are usually the first to deny that oft-viewed agenda.

 

[Hard Court]

Serena is in the same league as: Connolly, Court and Graf, IMO

Navratilova and Evert are arguably the best. They kept each other from winning more tournaments. They always had to deal with great players. When they came up, there was Court, King Goolagong. Then Austin for a few years. Then Graf when they got old.
Graf had years where Sanchez Vicario was the next best player. one year she was even ranked higher than Graf.
Williams had several years in the 2nd half of her career when there was no great opponent.
Graf and Williams should have been able to post higher winning percentages, and won many more GS tournaments, and more overall tournaments if they were really better. They didn't.

 

[pierceforehands]

Serena is in the same league as: Connolly, Court and Graf, IMO

I agree. Going back before the Open Era those are the 4 best players of all time. I would put Lenglen next best as her peers all say she is better than Wills despite Wills winning more due to a longer career, then Wills and Navratilova, then Evert, then a huge gap to King in 9th, then another huge gap to Venus, Henin, Seles, Goolagong, the others in the 10-14 range.

 

[jrepac]

I don’t think any of Serena’s. Ontemporaries had a winning h2h against her, assuming they played her at least 5 or 6 times. I don’t think Seles or Graf would have either. Serena’s game was just too big. Her serve and her return of serve were the best ever in the women’s game, and her groundstrokes were mor powerful than anyone’s.

Not quite...JCap could handle her off the ground better than you'd expect. Henin could hold her own. I do agree about the serve. Graf was way, way quicker and that would surely help her. Seles could hold her own against Serena...their matches were competitive when Monica was past prime and Serena was young.

 

[buscemi]

I agree. Going back before the Open Era those are the 4 best players of all time. I would put Lenglen next best as her peers all say she is better than Wills despite Wills winning more due to a longer career, then Wills and Navratilova, then Evert, then a huge gap to King in 9th, then another huge gap to Venus, Henin, Seles, Goolagong, the others in the 10-14 range.

I like Betz for that #14 slot ahead of Goolagong.

 

[Kiam]

Not quite...JCap could handle her off the ground better than you'd expect. Henin could hold her own. I do agree about the serve. Graf was way, way quicker and that would surely help her. Seles could hold her own against Serena...their matches were competitive when Monica was past prime and Serena was young.

I checked. Serena had a winning h2h against all of them.....except Mary Pierce, but they only played twice. But some were close....8-6 or 8-7.

 

[Kiam]

I agree. Going back before the Open Era those are the 4 best players of all time. I would put Lenglen next best as her peers all say she is better than Wills despite Wills winning more due to a longer career, then Wills and Navratilova, then Evert, then a huge gap to King in 9th, then another huge gap to Venus, Henin, Seles, Goolagong, the others in the 10-14 range.

What about Court?

 

[Kiam]

Navratilova and Evert are arguably the best. They kept each other from winning more tournaments. They always had to deal with great players. When they came up, there was Court, King Goolagong. Then Austin for a few years. Then Graf when they got old.
Graf had years where Sanchez Vicario was the next best player. one year she was even ranked higher than Graf.
Williams had several years in the 2nd half of her career when there was no great opponent.
Graf and Williams should have been able to post higher winning percentages, and won many more GS tournaments, and more overall tournaments if they were really better. They didn't.

Despite keeping each other from winning more tournaments, Chris and Martina won more tournaments than anyone in the Open era.....by FAR.....even though they each skipped ten slams when they were the top two ranked players in the world! Graf' record is shorter, although equally amazing, but I have to knock her down just a little due to the stabbing. Suppose Chris or Martina had been stabbed......what do you think would be the record ofvthebone who didn't get stabbed?

 

[BTURNER]

Serena's title count is too low, I agree, but all the main contenders have a significant flaw. Evert is being owned by peak Navratilova, and never


Neither Seles or Capriati lasted past 30 either though, and both were well past their best long before 30. And you can't put that down to just the stabbing when Seles was declining from earlier stages even in her second career due to age and injuries well before 30. So those aren't exactly counterpoints to Steffi suffering from joining the tour at 13. All the girls who did this are stupid and none excelled well into their 30s. Hingis came nowhere near as well, in fact her prime was done at about 19 and her first retirement was at only 21, then her second failed comeback where she didn't do much at 25 or 26. And don't even get me started on Jaeger and Austin. Graf did the best in that regard of the ridiculously early tour players, but it likely prevented her from having an even longer career and maintaining her prime form even longer.

Its interesting how differently we see Evert's flaws. We end in the same general spot, but the journey is different. Evert's flaws have nothing to do with quote 'being owned by peak Martina', and yet being owned by 'peak Martina' is a symptom of a broader weakness.

Evert's 'peak play' (still not even sure how it gets objectively defined and measured) was not as good as Martina's or Graf's or Court's or Serena's. Her highs weren't as high, but her lows weren't nearly as low either. Their best days were better than Evert's best days, The way you see Evert's true genius is to look at what did NOT happen, rather than what did. You have to turn her career upside down, because its not her wins that make her extraordinary, its the losses that everyone else acquired when they were young, when they had that slump, when they were injured or ill, or old and sluggish, that simply never showed up in Evert's resume nearly as ofent. There is far less to explain away, far fewer excuses to make, than in any other great's career.

But you have to turn Graf, Court, Navratilova and Serena's career upside down too... and scrutinize that Quarterfinal loss at the US Open . Pay attention to the who when where and why, rather than just the final they won the next year. Its not glamourous work. But you cannot see a whole career, by just counting tournament wins and pretending there is no difference between losing in the final,, and losing in the second round.

 

[jrepac]

I checked. Serena had a winning h2h against all of them.....except Mary Pierce, but they only played twice. But some were close....8-6 or 8-7.

she did, but that does not mean they were not competitive, and some of those wins were significant ones

 

[jrepac]

Its interesting how differently we see Evert's flaws. We end in the same general spot, but the journey is different. Evert's flaws have nothing to do with quote 'being owned by peak Martina', and yet being owned by 'peak Martina' is a symptom of a broader weakness.

Evert's 'peak play' (still not even sure how it gets objectively defined and measured) was not as good as Martina's or Graf's or Court's or Serena's. Her highs weren't as high, but her lows weren't nearly as low either. Their best days were better than Evert's best days, The way you see Evert's true genius is to look at what did NOT happen, rather than what did. You have to turn her career upside down, because its not her wins that make her extraordinary, its the losses that everyone else acquired when they were young, when they had that slump, when they were injured or ill, or old and sluggish, that simply never showed up in Evert's resume nearly as ofent. There is far less to explain away, far fewer excuses to make, than in any other great's career.

But you have to turn Graf, Court, Navratilova and Serena's career upside down too... and scrutinize that Quarterfinal loss at the US Open . Pay attention to the who when where and why, rather than just the final they won the next year. Its not glamourous work. But you cannot see a whole career, by just counting tournament wins and pretending there is no difference between losing in the final,, and losing in the second round.

Evert was the most consistent performer of her era, despite some ups and and downs, dealing w/the rise of Tracy, MN and Steffi, Gabby and Monica. Making GS final well into her 30's...and she was giving MN hell those last few years, a bit of sweet revenge. It's easy to discount her as her game isn't particularly striking or glamorous, but one of deadly accuracy. I do love her BH though...her and Connors....probably the best 2 handers ever in the game.

 

[thrust]

Evert was the most consistent performer of her era, despite some ups and and downs, dealing w/the rise of Tracy, MN and Steffi, Gabby and Monica. Making GS final well into her 30's...and she was giving MN hell those last few years, a bit of sweet revenge. It's easy to discount her as her game isn't particularly striking or glamorous, but one of deadly accuracy. I do love her BH though...her and Connors....probably the best 2 handers ever in the game.

It seems to me that Evert and Connors, pretty much began the rise of the two handed backhand. I can't think of a top player with the two hander before them.

 

[buscemi]

It seems to me that Evert and Connors, pretty much began the rise of the two handed backhand. I can't think of a top player with the two hander before them.

They were a rung below "top player" status, but Cliff Drysdale and Jane "Peaches" Bartkowicz are often seen as having the top two handed backhands in the era before Connors and Evert.

 

[jrepac]

They were a rung below "top player" status, but Cliff Drysdale and Jane "Peaches" Bartkowicz are often seen as having the top two handed backhands in the era before Connors and Evert.

you must be joking.....rung below??

 

[buscemi]

you must be joking.....rung below??

Drysdale reached #4 in the world in 1965 on the heels of making the finals of the U.S. Open as well as the semifinals of Wimbledon and the French Open. He won Gstaad on clay over Okker, Miami on hard x 2 (beating Laver and Gorman in the finals), Brussels on clay over Nastase, and Baltimore on carpet over Gorman. And, of course, he famously beat world #1 Laver at the 1968 U.S. Open.

Peaches Bartkowicz was #7 in ELO in 1968 (when she turned 19) and 1969 (when she turned 20). In 1969, she capped the year by beating Ann Jones in East London mere months after Jones had won Wimbledon. In 1970, she was part of the Original 9 group of women tennis players. That year, she won 4 titles on grass, hard, and clay. Her ELO that year was #11.

So, yeah, Drysdale and Bartkowicz were both solid top 10ish players in the years before Connors/Evert arrived on the scene, but a rung below the "top players" of the time.

 

[jrepac]

Drysdale reached #4 in the world in 1965 on the heels of making the finals of the U.S. Open as well as the semifinals of Wimbledon and the French Open. He won Gstaad on clay over Okker, Miami on hard x 2 (beating Laver and Gorman in the finals), Brussels on clay over Nastase, and Baltimore on carpet over Gorman. And, of course, he famously beat world #1 Laver at the 1968 U.S. Open.

Peaches Bartkowicz was #7 in ELO in 1968 (when she turned 19) and 1969 (when she turned 20). In 1969, she capped the year by beating Ann Jones in East London mere months after Jones had won Wimbledon. In 1970, she was part of the Original 9 group of women tennis players. That year, she won 4 titles on grass, hard, and clay. Her ELO that year was #11.

So, yeah, Drysdale and Bartkowicz were both solid top 10ish players in the years before Connors/Evert arrived on the scene, but a rung below the "top players" of the time.

Oh, never mind. I misunderstood your post...thinking you were saying Connors and Evert were a rung below.....LOL
I'm aware of both those players but never had the opportunity to see them in action.
I liked Drysdale as a commentator. And with Stolle, it was a comedy act.

 

[Pheasant]

I put Martina, Evert, Senera, Court, and Graf all in the top tier. I believe that each one has an argument for the GOAT. My personal pick is Martina. To be completely fair, I was way too young to follow tennis when Court was dominant. I don't ever remember watching Court play. I did catch all of the others on this list.

 

[PDJ]

I don’t think any of Serena’s. Ontemporaries had a winning h2h against her, assuming they played her at least 5 or 6 times. I don’t think Seles or Graf would have either. Serena’s game was just too big. Her serve and her return of serve were the best ever in the women’s game, and her groundstrokes were mor powerful than anyone’s.

H2H: Sanchez Vicario 4-3 Serena Williams

 

[jrepac]

I put Martina, Evert, Senera, Court, and Graf all in the top tier. I believe that each one has an argument for the GOAT. My personal pick is Martina. To be completely fair, I was way too young to follow tennis when Court was dominant. I don't ever remember watching Court play. I did catch all of the others on this list.

same here....only seen Court from online clips, aside from when they replayed the '70 W final on a rain delay...a great match. She was very impressive.

 

[BTURNER]

same here....only seen Court from online clips, aside from when they replayed the '70 W final on a rain delay...a great match. She was very impressive.

It was more impressive, because as much as we all heard about King's knees in this match. Margaret was playing on painkillers due to an ankle injury. The only weakness in her game, was a case of the yips at the service line when she was nervous. Her opponent's job was to somehow keep things close enough, that Margaret might get nervous. The head to head stats show us that strategy simply did not do the trick very often. Court was rock solid from wherever she chose to play her tennis.

 

[Kiam]

H2H: Sanchez Vicario 4-3 Serena Williams

Wow! I don't even think of them as contemporaries. Turns out that Aramtxa won four matches when Serena was 16, then Serena won the next three.

 

[Hard Court]

Its interesting how differently we see Evert's flaws. We end in the same general spot, but the journey is different. Evert's flaws have nothing to do with quote 'being owned by peak Martina', and yet being owned by 'peak Martina' is a symptom of a broader weakness.

Evert's 'peak play' (still not even sure how it gets objectively defined and measured) was not as good as Martina's or Graf's or Court's or Serena's. Her highs weren't as high, but her lows weren't nearly as low either. Their best days were better than Evert's best days, The way you see Evert's true genius is to look at what did NOT happen, rather than what did. You have to turn her career upside down, because its not her wins that make her extraordinary, its the losses that everyone else acquired when they were young, when they had that slump, when they were injured or ill, or old and sluggish, that simply never showed up in Evert's resume nearly as ofent. There is far less to explain away, far fewer excuses to make, than in any other great's career.

But you have to turn Graf, Court, Navratilova and Serena's career upside down too... and scrutinize that Quarterfinal loss at the US Open . Pay attention to the who when where and why, rather than just the final they won the next year. Its not glamourous work. But you cannot see a whole career, by just counting tournament wins and pretending there is no difference between losing in the final,, and losing in the second round.

Totally agree that every player has to be scrutiized. And yes, a loss in the final is a lot different than a loss in the 2nd round.
Have never understood the obsession people have with Navratilova dominated two-year against Evert. That is cherry picking. they played each other for many years before that and quite a bit afterwards. Navratilova won 43-37. That is very close. Take into consideration that most of the time the surface favored Navratilova, and it's a really a wash.
Navratilova and Evert are about as close as can be. It's almost impossible to rate someone between the two. The two kept each other from winning several more Grand Seles and regular tournaments as well.

Some of the fields (not all) were weak at the Australian Open when Court won them.
Graf had no real dangerous opponent after Seles was stabbed.
Williams won several Grand Slams in the latter part of her career against less than stellar competition. Somehow, nobody ever mentions that.

All five of these players have to be fairly close.