And I counter that with Serena's 13 slams won on easy true bouncing predictable hard courts. And not on uneven unpredictable grass courts at Kooyong/ Forrest Hills. Or the green clay courts of 1975-76-77...
Yes. Way too often she squandered her chances by losing to players she should not have, in the first week. Margaret very rarely lost in the first week of a slam to an unseeded player. I am not saying Serena wasn't trying, I am saying she wasn't prepared to compete, either mentally or physically to play and win 6-7 matches to win slams.
And so, you have just admitted as to why she could never be considered the GOAT. It really doesnt matter how great the draw was in her era. If you are unprepared, mentally unstable, or simply dont want to put in the effort. Then you have already lost. No matter who you may or not face. Margaret Court wasn't dominant becasue of weak draws. She was just better and more prepared. She, like so many Australian champions, is of the Harry Hopman era of work hard, train hard. And give the oponant nothing. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting her. A more competative person you will never meet.
You are saying its not Margarets fault that 1962 Aussie wasn't well attended. I agree. I am saying it did not measure what it was supposed to measure regardless of who won it. You are saying that Serena won with true bouncing courts more often and Margaret did not. I am saying they both proved dominant on all surfaces played in their era. Each era had different challenges.
And that we both can agree on!
Sort of. I am saying that playing the 'big matches' in the final rounds of the big tournaments is very big deal. Serena was incredible conversion stats in those last two rounds (semis and finals) . But playing well enough to get into those big matches is also a very big deal. Margaret was better at putting herself in position to win, by getting through those early matches where she got into trouble. Serena got into trouble in RDs 1-3 and did NOT dig her way out. There is no doubt of Margaret's dominance in 1962because she beat everyone there was to beat, more often than she didn't. She doesn't need to prove in in the 1962 Aussie if she proves it everywhere else in 1962.
Pretty sure Lenglen has the highest winning percentage in the amateur era by a decent margin.
Yes but both Wills and Connolly have extraordinarily few losses as well. Its the nature of that beast, to be able to contain risk. We have no clue what would have happened to either Wills or Lenglen had they traded losses and victories by co-mingling more through more international travel.
True. OTOH, Elizabeth Ryan at 1064-94 (91.9%) is also ahead of Court in winning percentage with a big amount of matches played. And, while Ryan was very solid player, I think this shows the problem with looking at just career winning percentage to pick the best player(s).
Its not the amount alone, if you keep playing the same people, with the same style over and over. Ryan did not travel much either. International competition is a very big deal to be exposed to NEW threats, no ideas, new methods and thus new dangers.
Oh, I totally agree. That's why I think so much context is needed beyond the bare winning percentages for Court, Navratilova, Graf, Evert, etc.
All of them traveled, had normal length careers and played against every style and surface in existence so they are apples being compared to apples at least. But I also look at some conversion stats to isolate 'big match or peak play'
I agree with your conclusion that Serena fell short of her potential, but some things were out of her hands…..like getting robbed of a semifinal win by terrible line calls at that US Open match vs Capriati. Also, she, like Venus, has an immune disorder that manifests as chronic migraines…..that’s why she looked so sad in so many matches, entering the arena. Her sister was murdered….that certainly didn’t help. She made three big mistakes: not keeping in to top shape in her 20s, not getting a second coach to her Dad, who could only take her so far, and waiting several years before switching to the new strings. Had she had the off-court determination of Djokovic, she’d be the queen, but anyway, she still had one heck of a career.
