Top 10 women players of all time at this point- where would you place Serena

[NadalAgassi]

lol, what ?

henin was clearly no 1 in 2003 - she won the FO beating serena and clijsters
she won the USO beating capriati and clijsters

she also made the SFs of AO and wimbledon ..

don't even start with that serena was the best player , because she coudn't even play that many matches and she did lose @ the FO to henin

LOL at the end of 2003 EVERYONE considered Serena as still being the best player, and in fact Venus as 2nd best. Henin was now considered the best on clay, that is it. Henin did deserve the #1 ranking since both she and Serena won 2 slams, and Henin played a whole year, but if you think she was considered "best player" at years end you are delusional, just as you are delusional on so many things. All through the U.S Open the commentators repeatedly mentioned "Venus and Serena, the 2 best players in the World missing." Until Henin beat Serena or Venus on any non clay surface, something she had NEVER done in her career to that point, nobody was going to consider her the best.

Serena until she was forced to miss the rest of the year with injury after Wimbledon had been clearly the best on hard courts and clearly the best on grass, Henin came nowhere close, and in fact Serena was much closer to her on clay than Henin was to Serena on either other surface. Based on that she was still clearly the best player in the World with no argument for Henin, the #1 ranking for Henin yes, but that doesnt always equate to best player.

when henin was no 1 in 2006 - she won a slam and made finals of the other 3 and won the WTA championships, win record of 87%

Mauresmo was considered the best player at the end of 2006 since she won 2 slams to Henin's 1 and beat Henin in the finals of both. Henin arguably deserved the #1 ranking, but Mauresmo was considered the top player of the year.

So just like I said the only year Henin was considered the best was 2007. Hingis was considered the best player in 1997, 1998, 1999.
This despite that the field in 1998 and 1999 was much better than 2004, 2005, and 2006, all which Henin failed to claim stake as the best player in the World.

in 98, she was #2, behind davenport , her record was one win, 1 final, 2 sfs and win at the wta championships, a 82% win record ... still quite clearly inferior to henin's 2006 ....

I have no idea whatsoever how Davenport ever ended 1998 at #1 since Hingis had better slam results- Australian Open winner, French Open semis, Wimbledon semis, U.S Open runner up vs Australian Open semis, French Open semis, Wimbledon quarters, U.S Open Champion, performed better all year across various surfaces by far (Davenport had the best year on hard courts), and won the WTA Championships over Davenport as well. Davenport managed to win only 1 more tournament (6 to 5) which clearly does not compensate for her inferior big event performance. Davenport's results at the end of 1998 in no way indicated her as the best player over Hingis overall, despite her #1 ranking.

 

[abmk]

LOL at the end of 2003 EVERYONE considered Serena as still being the best player, and in fact Venus as 2nd best. Henin was now considered the best on clay, that is it. Henin did deserve the #1 ranking since both she and Serena won 2 slams, and Henin played a whole year, but if you think she was considered "best player" at years end you are delusional, just as you are delusional on so many things. All through the U.S Open the commentators repeatedly mentioned "Venus and Serena, the 2 best players in the World missing." Until Henin beat Serena or Venus on any non clay surface, something she had NEVER done in her career to that point, nobody was going to consider her the best.

so now the criteria is henin has to beat serena/venus on a non-clay surface ? lol !

venus didn't win a single major in 2003 .... she was NOT the no2 player in 2003, not even close ...

Serena until she was forced to miss the rest of the year with injury after Wimbledon had been clearly the best on hard courts and clearly the best on grass, Henin came nowhere close, and in fact Serena was much closer to her on clay than Henin was to Serena on either other surface. Based on that she was still clearly the best player in the World with no argument for Henin, the #1 ranking for Henin yes, but that doesnt always equate to best player.

you need to play to be considered the best player ...henin was #1 player for 2003 ... fact .....

Mauresmo was considered the best player at the end of 2006 since she won 2 slams to Henin's 1 and beat Henin in the finals of both. Henin arguably deserved the #1 ranking, but Mauresmo was considered the top player of the year.

So just like I said the only year Henin was considered the best was 2007. Hingis was considered the best player in 1997, 1998, 1999.
This despite that the field in 1998 and 1999 was much better than 2004, 2005, and 2006, all which Henin failed to claim stake as the best player in the World.

henin was no 1 in 2006 .....

I have no idea whatsoever how Davenport ever ended 1998 at #1 since Hingis had better slam results- Australian Open winner, French Open semis, Wimbledon semis, U.S Open runner up vs Australian Open semis, French Open semis, Wimbledon quarters, U.S Open Champion, performed better all year across various surfaces by far (Davenport had the best year on hard courts), and won the WTA Championships over Davenport as well. Davenport managed to win only 1 more tournament (6 to 5) which clearly does not compensate for her inferior big event performance. Davenport's results at the end of 1998 in no way indicated her as the best player over Hingis overall, despite her #1 ranking.

davenport reached more finals , won more matches ( similar win loss % ) and one more title ...

funny how you argue for hingis' 98, which was inferior to henin's 2006 , let alone henin's 2003 .....

 

[NadalAgassi]

so now the criteria is henin has to beat serena/venus on a non-clay surface ? lol !

Considering Serena had won 5 of the last 6 majors, and Venus had been runner up in 5 of the last 6, did Henin need to beat one of them off of clay, Serena especialy, to be considered better, hell yeah. This is not a Federer vs Nadal case where Nadal usually beats Federer but Federer wins almost every non clay major in his prime, which is what you use to mock when people mention Nadal being missing from draws when Federer won (even events like Wimbledon 09 which Nadal was favored to win had he played). Henin had won NOTHING major off clay prior to the Williams both going down with injury, nada, zilch. Serena had won everything off clay (along with the 02 French to boot) with Venus the other finalist each time, in the last year and half, and this along with Henin producing 0 wins over either off of clay over either in her career to that point. So until Henin won a non clay major with Serena atleast in the draw she had proven nothing as far as being best player. Honestly you are in a fantasy World if you honestly believe Serena was not still considered the best player in the World at the end of 2003. Every expert said she was.

henin was #1 player for 2003 ... fact .....

I did not dispute her being #1. I said she was not considered the best player. Have you been too busy worshipping Federer you havent followed the WTA for 15 years?? Well if so stick to mens tennis and dont even bother getting involved in something you know squat about. Anyone who has actually followed the WTA knows one simple rule, the #1 ranking does not automaticaly = best player. Did you consider Wozniacki the best player in 2010 and 2011, Safina in 2009, Davenport in 2004 and 2005.

Note I also did not say Hingis was the best player in 2000 even though she spent almost every week at #1 and ended the year #1. Note I did not say Hingis was the best player in 2001 since she spent almost the whole year there.

henin was no 1 in 2006 .....

Indeed she was but again Mauresmo won 2 slams to Henin's 1, and beat Henin in the finals of both. Thus Mauresmo = 2006 best player in World, regardless of ranking.

davenport reached more finals , won more matches ( similar win loss % ) and one more title ...

Those are not enough to overcome weaker slam performances and the WTA Championships. Only a much better record in smaller tournaments or tier 1 type events would do that.

funny how you argue for hingis' 98, which was inferior to henin's 2006 , let alone henin's 2003 .....

I am comparing Hingis's 1998 to other players in 1998 and Henin's 2003 and 2006 to other players those years. In what bizarre World does Hingis's 1998 compared to Henin's 2006 show whether Hingis was the best in 1998 and whether Henin was the best in 2006.

 

[SoBad]

I would place Seles above Graf on the list.

 

[abmk]

I am comparing Hingis's 1998 to other players in 1998 and Henin's 2003 and 2006 to other players those years. In what bizarre World does Hingis's 1998 compared to Henin's 2006 show whether Hingis was the best in 1998 and whether Henin was the best in 2006.

well henin's 2003 was wayyyy better than hingis' 98/99 .....and her 2006 was also better than hingis' 98/99 ......

the fact that you even begin to argue hingis was best player in 98/99 but henin wasn't in 2003/2006 (not that I agree with that ) just goes to show that henin faced better competition by some distance in 2003/06 than hingis in 98/99 ....

and I don't follow the WTA as much as the ATP tour, but a bit of common sense helps in either case .....

also don't forget that henin had 5 years where she won slams, hingis only 3 ...

 

[Gizo]

You are right 1997 was a really weak year. Hingis though showed in late 96 she was ready to seriously challenge a prime Graf for #1, it was just unfortunate Graf got injured and she couldnt prove herself vs her. Hingis was #1 ranked most of 1998-2001 vs a very strong field, and while she only won 2 majors her ranking was not controversial until 2001. She had chances to win a number more too but choked some away, made many finals, won a WTA Championships, and won many tournaments. 2003 was a very strong year, but Henin lucked out with both Williams getting injured and missing the U.S Open, and Serena the 04 Australian Open, and this added with the French Open she won by beating Serena gave her the appearance of a dominant run. 2004-2007 were all pretty average years for the WTA, stronger than 1997, but much weaker than 1998-2003. The clay field was never at all strong this period and that is where most of Henin's major titles after winning the 03 U.S Open and 04 Australian Open sans Williams came.

I dont know if they are similar on hard courts. Hingis has a far better Australian Open record. Henin has 2 U.S Open titles and played amazing tennis to win both, but Hingis's overall record is far more consistent there. Henin never won Miami, one of the biggest hard court events, Hingis has won it twice and always performed well there.

I also dont know that they are similar indoors. Hasnt Hingis posted alot more top results indoors than Henin.

Well Hingis lucked out by winning most of her slams before the Williams Sisters and Davenport matured or reached their peaks. But then even a 17 year old Serena had far too much for her in the 1999 US Open final.

On hard courts Henin won 19 titles to Hingis's 17.

Also apart from Hingis's 1999 Australian Open title (where still fortunately for her Mauresmo took out Davenport for her), her other 3 hard court slams had very lightweight draws. I would say that Henin beat much stronger opponents to win her 3 hard court slams all in all. The Clijsters of 2003/2004 that Henin beat to win her 2003 US Open and 2004 Australian Open titles was still a much stronger opponent than any of the 4 opponents that Hingis beat to win her 4 hard court slams (an unseeded Pierce, baby Venus, Martinez and a young Mauresmo). Not to mention that Henin beat Serena and Venus en-route to her 2007 US Open title. Hingis of course did that at the 2001 Aussie Open but couldn't get the job done in the final.

Henin won the olympic gold medal as well. I would take peak Henin over peak Hingis on hard courts in an instant, and even a subpar Henin over a subpar Hingis. I don't think the Hingis of any year could have lived with the Henin of 2007 and her superior firepower on hard courts.

On indoors you are right Hingis's achievements are better with a lot more titles. Then again they both have 2 YEC titles so Henin is not too far behind.

And while Henin didn't dominate a strong clay court field, was it any worse than the pathetically weak hard court field than Hingis dominated from 1997 to early 1998. I very much doubt it.

As far as the world no. 1 ranking goes, at least during every week that Henin spent as the world no. 1, she held a grand slam title. During about 40% of Hingis's time as world no. 1 which came after she lost the 2000 Australian Open final, she didn't hold any grand slam titles.

 

[kiki]

yeah, because wimbledon is the only tournament that matters ...:roll:

Much more than Roland Garros ( where Martina was robbed her career slam by french crowds, umpires and nasty Steffi Graf)

Is Henin any closer to career slam?

 

[hoodjem]

She would be the GOAT no doubt. She would have 35 slams or more I bet. People talk about what Seles might have achieved without the stabbing, but Connolly was a whole other level entirely. She was unbeatable on all surfaces, not just slower ones like Seles, and there was nobody to challenge her until Court in 62 probably.

All true. She was driven and ruthless in her pursuit of victory.

 

[abmk]

Much more than Roland Garros ( where Martina was robbed her career slam by french crowds, umpires and nasty Steffi Graf)

Is Henin any closer to career slam?

and was hingis close to winning 7 slams like henin ? slams over a period of more than 3 years , like henin did ? no ... but you wouldn't accept the blindingly obvious facts because all you see in tennis is some of your crushes and are clueless about almost everything else ....

 

[kiki]

and was hingis close to winning 7 slams like henin ? slams over a period of more than 3 years , like henin did ? no ... but

you wouldn't accept the blindingly obvious facts because all you see in tennis is some of your crushes and are clueless about almost everything else ....

So your new crush is Justine Henin?

But I understand your lack of visual knowledge on Hingis, since you were not probably born when she was playing.

 

[Steve0904]

I cannot say Serena is the best. I listened to JMac go on about it ad nauseum at Wimbledon, and the USO, and I just wanted to throw my remote at the TV. Just because Serena has the best womens serve, and overall power game doesn't make her the best. The Williams sister revolutionized the womens game with inordinate amounts of power, and Serena could dominate with said power, but her acheivements as of today are not close enough for me to put her above any of Graf, Navratilova, or Evert. All of whom have at least 4 more slams than her.

 

[abmk]

So your new crush is Justine Henin?

But I understand your lack of visual knowledge on Hingis, since you were not probably born when she was playing.

dumbo, just because when I say that a player superior to your crush is in fact superior, doesn't mean I like that player ....

but then you are too thick to get that ... all you think about is your crushes ....otherwise you have near zero knowledge of tennis ....

fact is there at atleast 10 female players superior to hingis - graf, navratilova, court, evert, serena, king, conolloy, wills, lenglen,seles, venus, henin , goolagong .......

 

[TMF]

Saying Serena is the GOAT now is as ridiculous as *******s saying he was better than Sampras when he had 9-12 slams.

Absolutely. It's ridiculous when you consider Serena is so vastly behind other great players(total titles, winning %, slams, weeks at #1, domination, etc). Serena at best is equivalent to Nadal in the ATP, and Nadal fans would have something to say about that since his weeks at #1, slam count, total titles are closer to the past/present great players.

 

[kiki]

dumbo, just because when I say that a player superior to your crush is in fact superior, doesn't mean I like that player ....

but then you are too thick to get that ... all you think about is your crushes ....otherwise you have near zero knowledge of tennis ....

fact is there at atleast 10 female players superior to hingis - graf, navratilova, court, evert, serena, king, conolloy, wills, lenglen,seles, venus, henin , goolagong .......

Did you hear that Hingis owned Seles? clueless...

 

[NadalAgassi]

well henin's 2003 was wayyyy better than hingis' 98/99 .....and her 2006 was also better than hingis' 98/99 ......

the fact that you even begin to argue hingis was best player in 98/99 but henin wasn't in 2003/2006 (not that I agree with that ) just goes to show that henin faced better competition by some distance in 2003/06 than hingis in 98/99 ....

or maybe it just means there was alot more depth in 98/99 than 2003 and 2006, and hence it was hard for anyone to have as good a record as the best 2 players in 2003 and 2006 did. 2003 was only about 3 players Henin, Venus, and Serena, and 2 of those didnt play after early July due to injury. Kim was good but was a HUGE choker that year, especialy vs Justine. Their 2 slam finals that year were pathetic. 2006 was again only about 3 players Mauresmo, Henin, and Sharapova, nobody else was playing well or at the top level. 1998 and 1999 you had Hingis, Davenport, Novotna, Graf, Seles, Venus, Serena, Pierce, Martinez, Sanchez Vicario, all as real contenders. It is similar to how the mens game today has no depth at all outside the top 4, but atleast the top 3 includes 2 of the top 5 players of all time (Federer and Nadal) and another all time great (Djokovic), which Mauresmo and Sharapova obviously are not, and Henin way back in 2003 was not yet either.

 

[Gizo]

I agree that 1999-2003 was a golden age in women's tennis, but not 1998. Sure it was in improvement from 1997, but Serena still wasn't a force on the tour yet, not reaching a WTA final or posting a significant grand slam run until 1999. Davenport and Venus had improved significantly from 1997 of course but I think that Venus stepped up another gear in 1999, which was a truly outstanding year. 1998 I think was merely a good or decent year, not really any better than 2004-2007.

And Hingis only won slam title from 1999-2003 anyway.

 

[abmk]

Did you hear that Hingis owned Seles? clueless...

hingis owned a past her prime Seles , so ? But seles is far away the superior player, both achievements wise as well as at peak ....

santaro owned safin , so ? doesn't mean santaro was the superior player ....safin was ...

but then that's too much information for you to process .....

 

[NadalAgassi]

hingis owned a past her prime Seles , so ? But seles is far away the superior player, both achievements wise as well as at peak ....

Even a past her prime Seles was a very formidable player. Other than Venus, Serena, Davenport, Hingis, and Graf she owned everyone else including some fine players Capriati, Mauresmo, Clijsters, Sanchez Vicario, Martinez. Henin herself wasnt exactly owned but went 3-4 vs this past prime Seles, and Seles was alot older and further past her prime by then than when Hingis played and owned her.

 

[treblings]

Much more than Roland Garros ( where Martina was robbed her career slam by french crowds, umpires and nasty Steffi Graf)

where´s Joe Pike when you really need him
talk about sore losers, here´s a sore fan
the main reason for Hingis losing that final was herself. she couldn´t handle the situation and reacted like a spoiled brat. can happen when you´re very young and used to winning.
the french crowds are always partisan, Graf played a good match that day and was in no way nasty but focused.
i hope Hingis has a more mature remembrance of that final

 

[dominikk1985]

Behind Graf, navratilova, evert and court but ahead of henin, seles, hingis and venus and billie jean king.

she could have been better had she not gotten overweight and enjoyed her "celebrity life" but concentrated on tennis. that era was terrible and she didn't capitalize enough considering her talent.

when she was into it she usually won but a real champion is always 100% motivated and not just if she is in the right mood. steffi and martina never got fat or were out of shape. I have great respect for serena as a tennis champion and I actually root for her over all those eastern europeans but a real champion should be a professional all the time.

 

[kiki]

I agree that 1999-2003 was a golden age in women's tennis, but not 1998. Sure it was in improvement from 1997, but Serena still wasn't a force on the tour yet, not reaching a WTA final or posting a significant grand slam run until 1999. Davenport and Venus had improved significantly from 1997 of course but I think that Venus stepped up another gear in 1999, which was a truly outstanding year. 1998 I think was merely a good or decent year, not really any better than 2004-2007.

And Hingis only won slam title from 1999-2003 anyway.

Another belitteling Martina?

 

[Gizo]

I'm not belittling Hingis at all. She was a great player, but just not as great as Henin in my opinion, who put together a better set of accomplishments despite playing in a tougher era. I don't Hingis is as great as Venus either.

None of those 3 players belong in the top 10 anyway. In no particular order, Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court, Wills-Moody, Serena, Connolly, Lenglen, King and Seles are all greater.

 

[Tennishacker]

I just buy into all time great lists.

Too difficult to compare different era's.

 

[dominikk1985]

I'm not belittling Hingis at all. She was a great player, but just not as great as Henin in my opinion, who put together a better set of accomplishments despite playing in a tougher era. I don't Hingis is as great as Venus either.

None of those 3 players belong in the top 10 anyway. In no particular order, Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court, Wills-Moody, Serena, Connolly, Lenglen, King and Seles are all greater.

I agree. hingis was a very good player but I think that henin is really underrated.

henin is clearly behind serena (although she dominated her one season) but ahead of hingis, venus, davenport, clijsters and all the eastern european women (I just make one person out of all those eastern europeans like ivanovic, sharapova, azarenka, kournikova...).

I would rank her just behind seles about 6-7 or so. henin had a relatively short peak compared to the other greats but in that time she was super dominant against a very strong opposition.

 

[kiki]

I'm not belittling Hingis at all. She was a great player, but just not as great as Henin in my opinion, who put together a better set of accomplishments despite playing in a tougher era. I don't Hingis is as great as Venus either.

None of those 3 players belong in the top 10 anyway. In no particular order, Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court, Wills-Moody, Serena, Connolly, Lenglen, King and Seles are all greater.

Seles, while an all timer is a bit overrated.IMO, a non Wimbledon winner does not have a right to be top 10.Bueno or Goolagong or Dorothy Lambert Chambers are as good a choice as Seles.Why not Venus?She is almost as good as her sister.

 

[kiki]

I agree. hingis was a very good player but I think that henin is really underrated.

henin is clearly behind serena (although she dominated her one season) but ahead of hingis, venus, davenport, clijsters and all the eastern european women (I just make one person out of all those eastern europeans like ivanovic, sharapova, azarenka, kournikova...).

I would rank her just behind seles about 6-7 or so. henin had a relatively short peak compared to the other greats but in that time she was super dominant against a very strong opposition.

Hingis played more tough competition and a bigger number of all time greats, Henin´s concurrence is good but still not super (Sharapova,Kuznetsova,Maursesmo,Clijsters,2 Williams vs Seles,Graf,2 Williams,Davenport,Capriati,Sanchez,Martinez,Novotna,Pierce, Clijsters and, of course, still very tough Steffi Graf, no colour there)

 

[NadalAgassi]

Seles, while an all timer is a bit overrated.IMO, a non Wimbledon winner does not have a right to be top 10.Bueno or Goolagong or Dorothy Lambert Chambers are as good a choice as Seles.Why not Venus?She is almost as good as her sister.

Venus at her peak was better than Seles at her peak, atleast on faster surfaces. She has alot of major holes in her career though, so many that many even rank her below Henin (wrongfully IMO). Venus is hard to rank. Her clay and Australian Open records are massively dissapointing, and in general her career now looks very grass heavy. She showed tremendous promise to be an all time great at her peak from 99-2003 but was victimized by a peak Serena in 2002-2003, and has fizzled out since.

I think it would be hard to rank her overall career ahead of Seles, even if I think Venus at her best is the better player on all fast courts.

Venus at her best is almost as good as Serena at her best, some even say just as good, but she doesnt have Serena's unquestionable thirst for success and she isnt as good a match player over an entire career.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Hingis played more tough competition and a bigger number of all time greats, Henin´s concurrence is good but still not super (Sharapova,Kuznetsova,Maursesmo,Clijsters,2 Williams vs Seles,Graf,2 Williams,Davenport,Capriati,Sanchez,Martinez,Novotna,Pierce, Clijsters and, of course, still very tough Steffi Graf, no colour there)

The Hingis/Venus/Serena/Davenport era is still a very special one IMO. That was arguably the time womens tennis and its excitement at its highest. Those were the big 4 and the excitment over their rivalries and battles captivated fans and drew people to the WTA in a way it hadnt since the Evert and Navratilova days. You also had at various times legends Graf and Seles even if near the end of their careers, other great veterans like Sanchez and Novotna, other stronger contenders like Pierce and Mauresmo, and other at the time promising upstarts like Kournikova and Lucic even if they fizzled out since. I dont remember the Henin era ever having that excitment. In 2003 there was some excitement when you had a big 4 of Venus/Serena/Henin/Clijsters, and Capriati and Davenport and Mauresmo all hanging in, but the 2 Henin-Clijsters finals sucked since Kim couldnt hold up to the pressure of big matches yet, and thereafter Venus and Serena went down injured, Kim went down injured, Henin went down ill, and it never reached that point of interest during the Henin era ever again. It was mostly just Henin lording over lesser champions like Sharapova, Mauresmo, Kuznetova, and Clijsters, and a times half commited and unfit Williams factoring in too, and even while leading that era generally not dominating despite virtually no real competition at her level.

 

[dominikk1985]

could venus have been broken mentally by getting owned by her little sister?

I mean as an older sibling you are used to dominate your little brother and sister from day 1 (doesn't mean you bully him but you know that you are superior).

when you later find out your little sister kicks your ass that is mentally very hard.

the opposite is less hard because the younger brother or sister is used to be the weaker one. for example wladimir klitschko never had a problem that vitali was the big brother, he got KTFOed by corrie sanders and then vitali brutalized sanders in the revenge fight. most would consider that embarassing but wladimir seemed fine with this because he acknowledged vitali as the boss. it even seemed that the sanders loss bothered vitali more than himself (vitali could generally take losses not as well).

so maybe venus never overcame being crushed by her little sister mentally.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I do think Serena ruined Venus's career essentialy. Not only talking all those slams away from her in 2002-2003, but I agree Venus never fully got over by overtaken and ultimately owned by Serena for awhile. Even though she outwardly was happy for Serena, there was a part of her that died inside I think, and she just was never completely the same Venus again. Add to that her illness which we now know has been ongoing for years, and most likely impacted her performances on non grass surfaces, especialy slower courts, ever since 2003.

 

[kiki]

The Hingis/Venus/Serena/Davenport era is still a very special one IMO. That was arguably the time womens tennis and its excitement at its highest. Those were the big 4 and the excitment over their rivalries and battles captivated fans and drew people to the WTA in a way it hadnt since the Evert and Navratilova days. You also had at various times legends Graf and Seles even if near the end of their careers, other great veterans like Sanchez and Novotna, other stronger contenders like Pierce and Mauresmo, and other at the time promising upstarts like Kournikova and Lucic even if they fizzled out since. I dont remember the Henin era ever having that excitment. In 2003 there was some excitement when you had a big 4 of Venus/Serena/Henin/Clijsters, and Capriati and Davenport and Mauresmo all hanging in, but the 2 Henin-Clijsters finals sucked since Kim couldnt hold up to the pressure of big matches yet, and thereafter Venus and Serena went down injured, Kim went down injured, Henin went down ill, and it never reached that point of interest during the Henin era ever again. It was mostly just Henin lording over lesser champions like Sharapova, Mauresmo, Kuznetova, and Clijsters, and a times half commited and unfit Williams factoring in too, and even while leading that era generally not dominating despite virtually no real competition at her level.

I agree with your view of the late 90´s excitment provided by the big four of that time.I think the 90´s are the summit of women´s tennis in terms of real tough competition atop and different styles, where Hingis provided a much different type of game, yet extremely effective.Sometimes I wish Graf and Seles be at their top in the last years of the 90´s, but they were still very good and that made the whole decade special.I think men´s summit was reached in the 80´s if we look the whole decade as a unit.However, early to middle 70´s and early to middle 90´s were almost as good but early 70´s tennis was still raising and early 90´s it was a bit on the downwards curve.

 

[Gizo]

Seles, while an all timer is a bit overrated.IMO, a non Wimbledon winner does not have a right to be top 10.Bueno or Goolagong or Dorothy Lambert Chambers are as good a choice as Seles.Why not Venus?She is almost as good as her sister.

Seles was amazing at her peak IMO. 7 majors out of 9 from 1991-1993 was incredible dominance. No Wimbledon title but she simultaneously dominated 4 out of the 5 biggest tournaments at the same time; 3 consecutive Australian Open titles, 3 consecutive Roland Garros titles in the toughest clay court era in the history of women's tennis, 2 consecutive US Open titles and 3 consecutive YEC titles.

I don't think Venus was anywhere near as good as Serena. Venus has 3 big blemishes on her CV, never winning an Australian Open title, never winning an RG title, and never finished as the year end no. 1. Her combined record at Melbourne and RG was 2 finals and 1 semi-final, not that great all.

Even in her prime Venus had an unreliable forehand and a weak 2nd serve. In fact as her forehand improved her backhand got worse, so she never had a strong forehand and backhand at the same time, unlike a peak Seles or Serena.

 

[Gizo]

The Hingis/Venus/Serena/Davenport era is still a very special one IMO. That was arguably the time womens tennis and its excitement at its highest. Those were the big 4 and the excitment over their rivalries and battles captivated fans and drew people to the WTA in a way it hadnt since the Evert and Navratilova days. You also had at various times legends Graf and Seles even if near the end of their careers, other great veterans like Sanchez and Novotna, other stronger contenders like Pierce and Mauresmo, and other at the time promising upstarts like Kournikova and Lucic even if they fizzled out since. I dont remember the Henin era ever having that excitment. In 2003 there was some excitement when you had a big 4 of Venus/Serena/Henin/Clijsters, and Capriati and Davenport and Mauresmo all hanging in, but the 2 Henin-Clijsters finals sucked since Kim couldnt hold up to the pressure of big matches yet, and thereafter Venus and Serena went down injured, Kim went down injured, Henin went down ill, and it never reached that point of interest during the Henin era ever again. It was mostly just Henin lording over lesser champions like Sharapova, Mauresmo, Kuznetova, and Clijsters, and a times half commited and unfit Williams factoring in too, and even while leading that era generally not dominating despite virtually no real competition at her level.

It was a special era indeed. At the time there were 4 big stars in women's tennis, Kournikova, Serena, Venus and Hingis (Davenport was a fantastic player but casual fans didn't really care much about her), and Hingis and Davenport's rivalry with and hatred of Venus and Serena generated a lot of excitement and headlines.

However how many majors did Hingis win during this exciting time? One. The 1999 Australian Open. In fact Hingis didn't win a single major after Serena won her first WTA title at Paris in 1999.

If we take 1999-2003 as the golden age of women's tennis, Henin won more majors during that time period than Hingis did in-fact. Most of Hingis's major success came before the golden age started.

Hingis was getting owned by Capriati and Davenport in majors during that time, and Seles who she had a strong record against got one over her at the 2002 US Open title. Henin has victories over Venus (the 2007 Venus was better than the baby 1997 Venus), Serena, Davenport and Capriati en-route to winning her major titles.

 

[NadalAgassi]

It was a special era indeed. At the time there were 4 big stars in women's tennis, Kournikova, Serena, Venus and Hingis (Davenport was a fantastic player but casual fans didn't really care much about her), and Hingis and Davenport's rivalry with and hatred of Venus and Serena generated a lot of excitement and headlines.

However how many majors did Hingis win during this exciting time? One. The 1999 Australian Open. In fact Hingis didn't win a single major after Serena won her first WTA title at Paris in 1999.

If we take 1999-2003 as the golden age of women's tennis, Henin won more majors during that time period than Hingis did in-fact. Most of Hingis's major success came before the golden age started.

Hingis was getting owned by Capriati and Davenport in majors during that time, and Seles who she had a strong record against got one over her at the 2002 US Open title. Henin has victories over Venus (the 2007 Venus was better than the baby 1997 Venus), Serena, Davenport and Capriati en-route to winning her major titles.

Fair enough. I do definitely see your point. It is just when people associate the Golden Period in their mind they think of Hingis as a part of it more than they do Henin. People remember the Hingis/Davenport/Venus/Serena group and the years they battled it out on top, along with Seles, Graf, Sanchez, and Novotna still around, Kournikova bringing extra attention, a veteran Pierce and then up and coming Mauresmo as major contenders, and Capriati's resurgence. Henin came in only near the end of that as an up and coming star. By 2003 it was already changing or had changed some, Hingis was retired, Davenport was past her prime, Capriati was past her glory, all Graf era players were long retired, and it was a Williams and Belgians show which didnt even last too long either.

 

[PDJ]

I think it's fair to say that serena Williams does deserve a place in the top 10 lists, but personally I wouldn't place her,as yet, in the top 5. I agree with many others that her over-all career does not compare with some others mentioned.
I'd also like to correct the post that stated evert didn't win either the USO or Wimbledon after 1981- she won the US title in 1982.
Also it's stated numerously that both Court & Graf have inflated records but you could also make an argument that had Evert played the french in the mid 70s she would have had at least 2 more titles from the 3 years she missed: Also, she only played the Australian Open 6 times (reaching final every time, winning 2) in a long career. But it is what it is......

 

[ga tennis]

1.serena Williams
2.martina Navratilova
3.monica Seles
4.steffi Graf
5.justine Henin (could Have Been Higher)

 

[kiki]

Fair enough. I do definitely see your point. It is just when people associate the Golden Period in their mind they think of Hingis as a part of it more than they do Henin. People remember the Hingis/Davenport/Venus/Serena group and the years they battled it out on top, along with Seles, Graf, Sanchez, and Novotna still around, Kournikova bringing extra attention, a veteran Pierce and then up and coming Mauresmo as major contenders, and Capriati's resurgence. Henin came in only near the end of that as an up and coming star. By 2003 it was already changing or had changed some, Hingis was retired, Davenport was past her prime, Capriati was past her glory, all Graf era players were long retired, and it was a Williams and Belgians show which didnt even last too long either.

Henin never played in Golden Era

 

[PDJ]

Henin never played in Golden Era

More importantly, how could Henin be ranked in top 5? I'd like to see the argument made compared to other contenders.

 

[Gizo]

Henin never played in Golden Era

Henin won the first WTA title of her career during the first year of the golden era, at Antwerp in 1999. She had her first deep runs at majors during the middle year of the golden era, at RG and Wimbledon in 2001. She won 14 WTA titles in total during that 1999-2003 golden era including 2 majors.

Hingis's dominance came before the golden era (after Graf's 1987-1996 prime and before Serena, Venus and Davenport entered their respective primes). During the golden era, she became more of a nearly woman at the majors.

 

[TMF]

I think Henin, Hingis and Venus are very close. If I have to ranked them it would be:

1. Henin
2. Hingis
3. Venus

 

[pc1]

I think Henin, Hingis and Venus are very close. If I have to ranked them it would be:

1. Henin
2. Hingis
3. Venus

I could go with that. I think Hingis and Henin have had individual seasons superior to anything Venus has. Haven't checked but I think Venus may be ahead of both head to head.

 

[kiki]

Henin won the first WTA title of her career during the first year of the golden era, at Antwerp in 1999. She had her first deep runs at majors during the middle year of the golden era, at RG and Wimbledon in 2001. She won 14 WTA titles in total during that 1999-2003 golden era including 2 majors.

Hingis's dominance came before the golden era (after Graf's 1987-1996 prime and before Serena, Venus and Davenport entered their respective primes). During the golden era, she became more of a nearly woman at the majors.

We disagree on what GE was

 

[kiki]

BTW, yesterday one of the greatest all time players passed away.Margaret Osborne was one of the most intringuing and exhilarating personalities, with an unmatched record of wins that BJK said " was her inspiration and role model to play tennis".

If both, Connolly and Osborne had peaked at the same time and had lasted all through a decade, their rivalry would have reached epic proportions.

She belongs with the very best.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Serena is definitely in the top 5 of all time for a variety of reasons.

1. Serena Williams is a black woman and she did impossible dominate a predominately white sport such as tennis. So, for being a woman of colour and having such a high level of excellence in tennis she deserves termendous praise. I don't think people who are white can truly understand how incredible Serena Williams is.

Mary Carillo, Pam Shriver, Martina Navratilova, Tracy Austin, Chris Evert all American women have treated Serena like a punching bag routinely criticizing her about her weight, her fashion choices, her dedication to the game. I do not believe if Serena Williams was a white American woman that she would be so disrespected by bigots such as the white American female tennis commentators.

Serena and Venus said when they were children they were ridiculed, criticized, and ostracized when they played junior events due to racism. Richard Williams pulled his daughters out of junior events due to wanting to protect his daughters.

Serena and Venus encountered and still experience so much racism and sexism because they are black women.

Even Serena has said the grand slam she has experienced the most problems is in America at the US OPEN. And let's not forget the Indian Wells incident of 2001 in Serena's own country America.

Some people are uncomfortable with Serena's success they find anything and everything they can to criticize her because they don't like it that a black woman is dominating a white sport. Tennis is still very expensive and the USTA fiasco with Taylor Townsend proves the United States tennis establishment still has problems with black women due to racism and prejudice.

I know people don't like talking about race but what Serena has achieved along with Venus will probably not happen for a long time. Serena transcends tennis she has a global international superstar and probbaly the best female athlete in the world I believe.

2. Serena has 15 grand slam singles titles seems to me haters refuse to acknowledge how great she is. Serena is definitely in the top 5 she has surpassed her sister Venus, Billie Jean King, and numerous other players.


3. Now that we have gotten to the top five this is where it gets tricky. Now some people say Graf is the best but I disagree. In the early 1990s, Steffi was really struggling against Monica Seles she had a 1-3 record against Monica in slam finals. The stabbing changed women's tennis and there were dark ages from 1993 to 1996 three of the worst years in women's tennis history.

4. I won't include Margaret Court because even though she won the most 24 slams 11 of her slams were won when tennis players rarely ever ventured down under to Australia. Also, Court's homophobia, and bigoted comments hurt her credentials.

Here is my list.

1. Martina Navratilova

2. Serena Williams

3. Steffi Graf

4. Chris Evert

5. Billie Jean King

 

[NadalAgassi]

Here is my list.

1. Martina Navratilova

2. Serena Williams

3. Steffi Graf

4. Chris Evert

5. Billie Jean King

The bolded one is the only one which confuses me. How could King be in the top 5 and Court not. I realize there are a variety of opinions how Court's career and where she rankes, her inflated # of slams due to the Australian Open, etc....but wherever she is it has to be higher than King. Court and King are almost the exact same age and played in the exact same era. Court completely outshone King on court in everyway, many more slams, many more tournament titles, more doubles victories, overwhelming head to head edge. Even if you eliminated the Australian Open completely (Court won 11, King only 1) Court would still have more slams than King.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

1. The battle of the sexes match in 1973 did a lot for women's tennis when Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs. Margaret Court LOST To Riggs but Billie beat him it was a symbolic victory for women's tennis proving a woman can beat a man.

2. Billie Jean King started the WTA Tour she is the one that helped the WTA be a professional organization where female tennis players can make an honest living and good money. Look at women's tennis now it is the most successful and highest profile female sport in the world.

3. Billie Jean King is openly lesbian and she broke down a lot of barriers along with Martina Navratilova for lesbians in the women's game. Now women's tennis doesn't really have a problem with homophobia due to King's activism.

4. Margaret Court is a homophobe and anti lesbian she prejudice against gays and lesbians tarnishes her legacy she is off the list.

 

[Gizo]

We disagree on what GE was

Just as a matter of interest which years do you consider to be part of the golden era in women's tennis?

1997 sure as hell wouldn't count as part of any golden era given how poor women's tennis was that year, and how little competition there was. 1998 had some good stories such as Seles reaching the RG final so soon after the death of her father and Novotna finally winning her Wimbledon title. However I also don't think that would be part of the golden era as the competition still wasn't that great (from 1999 women's tennis was amazing though).

1994 when Seles was completely off the tour all year and Graf lost motivation also wouldn't be part of any golden era.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Maybe I am in the minority but I thought 1994 was a good year for womens tennis.

-Graf played very well IMO. She won her first 32 matches. Her major losses later in the year were mostly due to inspired play by her opponents I believe, along with injury at the U.S Open

-Sanchez Vicario played her best year of tennis ever hands down. Was arguably the best player in the World that year ahead of Graf.

-Martinez had her big breakthrough as a top player, winning Wimbledon.

-Pierce emerged as a major force. She wouldnt play tennis of her 94/early 95 level ever again until 1999/2000, and the one last time in 2005.

-Davenport emerged as a threat.

-Sabatini won the WTA Championships to cement herself as still being a contender for the near future.

-Novotna cemented herself as a solid top 5 by playing very good, albeit not exceptional tennis, throughout the year.

-Some wonderful surprise performances, McNeil and Navratilova at Wimbledon, Gigi Fernandez at Wimbledon and the U.S Open, Kimiko Date all year long, Mary Pierce at Roland Garros, Werdel the whole winter.

 

[Lionheart392]

I could go with that. I think Hingis and Henin have had individual seasons superior to anything Venus has. Haven't checked but I think Venus may be ahead of both head to head.

Venus has a winning record (7-2) against Henin but a losing record against Hingis, 10-11.

 

[kiki]

1. The battle of the sexes match in 1973 did a lot for women's tennis when Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs. Margaret Court LOST To Riggs but Billie beat him it was a symbolic victory for women's tennis proving a woman can beat a man.

2. Billie Jean King started the WTA Tour she is the one that helped the WTA be a professional organization where female tennis players can make an honest living and good money. Look at women's tennis now it is the most successful and highest profile female sport in the world.

3. Billie Jean King is openly lesbian and she broke down a lot of barriers along with Martina Navratilova for lesbians in the women's game. Now women's tennis doesn't really have a problem with homophobia due to King's activism.

4. Margaret Court is a homophobe and anti lesbian she prejudice against gays and lesbians tarnishes her legacy she is off the list.

Are you a political activist or just a troll?
What the hell has to do being lesbic,black or homophobe with tennis greatness?