Top 20 US players of all time

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Changes will be made accordingly.

Casals had only 11 singles titles according to her HOF bio.

Still, 29 titles does not get you into the Hall.
Robert Bedard had 30 titles, no Hall entrance.
J. Gilbert Hall had 39 titles, no Hall.
She has 9 doubles Majors + 29 singles titles. That compares favorably to Sukova, who made the HOF with 9 doubles Majors + 10 singles titles. They're both among the best players to never win a singles Major and had tons of success in doubles.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
She has 9 doubles Majors + 29 singles titles. That compares favorably to Sukova, who made the HOF with 9 doubles Majors + 10 singles titles. They're both among the best players to never win a singles Major and had tons of success in doubles.
Tennis Abstract (Jeff Sackmann) gives no documentation for that 29 figure, that is just his own unsupported number, Sackmann probably includes junior titles.

The WTA articles gives 11 titles, same as her HOF article.

Casals had only 11 singles titles according to her HOF bio.
International Tennis Hall of Fame

Still, 29 titles does not get you into the Hall.
Robert Bedard had 30 titles, no Hall entrance.
J. Gilbert Hall had 39 titles, no Hall.

The official WTA stats are in agreement with Wikipedia. Wins 0.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Evert and Martina won the same number of majors. The only difference is that Evert reached more finals and won them in fewer years, and with a LOT fewer early round losses. Nobody pays attention to the bad losses these champions acrue to acquire those titles.

Its to Evert's detriment that she loses to Martina too often in finals of Wimbledon/US Open . It is not to Martina's detriment that she loses to Veronica Burton 3rd Rd, Patty Hogan 3rd Rd, Mimi Jausovec 1st Rd, Margaret Court QF, Janet Newberry 3rd Rd, Betty Stove QF, Mandlikova 4th rd, Shriver QF, QF Zina Garrison all before she got to semifinals, and thats just 1973 -1989.

Evert lost to Jordan 3rd rd, McNeil QF and Garrison QF. Three times fewer losses before the semis than Martina, and including 1971 Open, and 1972 Open and Wimbledon.

Martina continued to loose at Evert retired: Manuela Maleeva 4th rd, Capriati QF, Magdalena Maleeva 2nd Rd, Sukova 4th Rd, Gelisa Dulko 2nd Rd

Why is consistency never an attribute that gets respected.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
She has 9 doubles Majors + 29 singles titles. That compares favorably to Sukova, who made the HOF with 9 doubles Majors + 10 singles titles. They're both among the best players to never win a singles Major and had tons of success in doubles.
I think that Turnbull has a similar record to Casals, Turnbull won 55 doubles titles, including 4 majors and two major runner-ups. She hnd Casals were sometimes doubles partners and won a major together.

Turnbull did not make the HOF.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
Tennis Abstract (Jeff Sackmann) gives no documentation for that 29 figure, that is just his own unsupported number, Sackmann probably includes junior titles.

The WTA articles gives 11 titles, same as her HOF article.

Casals had only 11 singles titles according to her HOF bio.
International Tennis Hall of Fame

Still, 29 titles does not get you into the Hall.
Robert Bedard had 30 titles, no Hall entrance.
J. Gilbert Hall had 39 titles, no Hall.

The official WTA stats are in agreement with Wikipedia. Wins 0.
Her HOF bio says Casals "won 11 professional singles titles." Looking at the Tennis Abstract tally, that makes sense b/c most of her titles were in the amateur era. For example, Tennis Abstract has Casals winning the Auckland title in 1967 by beating Francoise Durr in the final and the Melbourne title in 1966 by beating Kerry Reid in the final.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
I think that Turnbull has a similar record to Casals, Turnbull won 55 doubles titles, including 4 majors and two major runner-ups. She hnd Casals were sometimes doubles partners and won a major together.

Turnbull did not make the HOF.
Yeah, I'm a big Turnbull fan. I agree that their singles records are similar, but 9 Major doubles titles vs, 4 Major doubles titles likely explains the difference.
 

AgassiSuperSlam11

Professional
Rosie Casals?
Made it into the Hall with 0 career titles.
Was once ranked No. 3 in singles, despite no titles.
I guess you could say that any player ranked within the top 5 deserves to get into the Hall.

LOL. Notice I said, "Honorable Mention" and also you can't take a portion of a comment and make a rather broad generalization. I think you are the same person that thinks every Wimbledon champion should be in the Hall of Fame which includes players as Pat Cash and Richard Krajicek who have career achievements that dwarf many players that haven't been inducted into the HOF. This discussion is limited in scope to "Top 20 US Players" and my views on the HOF are already well documented in this forum. All discussions regarding rankings and hall of fame induction are inherently subjective and this extends to all major sports.
 

AgassiSuperSlam11

Professional
Tennis Abstract gives no documentation, this is an unsubstantiated figure, perhaps he included junior events.

Casals had only 11 singles titles according to her HOF bio.

Still, 29 titles does not get you into the Hall.
Robert Bedard had 30 titles, no Hall entrance.
J. Gilbert Hall had 39 titles, no Hall.

The WTA stats are in agreement with Wikipedia. Wins 0.


This WTA article gives her 11 singles titles.


In more recent years Sabatini and Stich got in with less than 29 titles and only 1 slam. Muster won over 40 titles with 1 slam and yet didn't get inducted. Slocum got in with far less but did win 2 US National titles. Of course, some players with less titles got in mainly due to their accomplishments in doubles. This is why the discussion is subjective. Sabatini was no ordinary #3 and played tennis facing various great champions as Graf (peak), Seles, Martina, ASV, and Capriati just to name a few.
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
And Turnbull had weak partners for the most part in those major finals she appeared in.

Doubles takes two players.
13 of Turnbull's Major doubles finals were played with Casals (x5), Stove (x3), Mandlíková (x2), Melville Reid (x2), and Evert. Those were all really good doubles partners. Only Ann Hobbs was a weaker opponent, and both of the finals she played with her were against Navratilova/Shriver, so it's not like she was winning those anyway.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
13 of Turnbull's Major doubles finals were played with Casals (x5), Stove (x3), Mandlíková (x2), Melville Reid (x2), and Evert. Those were all really good doubles partners. Only Ann Hobbs was a weaker opponent, and both of the finals she played with her were against Navratilova/Shriver, so it's not like she was winning those anyway.
Looks like Turnbull lost nine major doubles finals to Navratilova, who was partnered by both Shriver and King. Tougher opposition than Casals faced in her wins.
I doubt that I would rate Casals higher than Turnbull as a doubles player.
 
Evert and Martina won the same number of majors. The only difference is that Evert reached more finals and won them in fewer years, and with a LOT fewer early round losses. Nobody pays attention to the bad losses these champions acrue to acquire those titles.

Its to Evert's detriment that she loses to Martina too often in finals of Wimbledon/US Open . It is not to Martina's detriment that she loses to Veronica Burton 3rd Rd, Patty Hogan 3rd Rd, Mimi Jausovec 1st Rd, Margaret Court QF, Janet Newberry 3rd Rd, Betty Stove QF, Mandlikova 4th rd, Shriver QF, QF Zina Garrison all before she got to semifinals, and thats just 1973 -1989.

Evert lost to Jordan 3rd rd, McNeil QF and Garrison QF. Three times fewer losses before the semis than Martina, and including 1971 Open, and 1972 Open and Wimbledon.

Martina continued to loose at Evert retired: Manuela Maleeva 4th rd, Capriati QF, Magdalena Maleeva 2nd Rd, Sukova 4th Rd, Gelisa Dulko 2nd Rd

Why is consistency never an attribute that gets respected.
Good points!
A lot of people don't seem to get this.

Let's say player A beats player B in the final. Then, next time, player A loses in the fourth round, and player B goes on to win the tournament. just by going by those 2 tournaments, a lot of people would say player A did better because he won the head-to-head. What they don't seem to realize is that they are giving more credit to the player who lost in the 4th round than the player who was the runner up!!

Another example is Evonne Goolagong going 7-11 in GS finals. I say that 7-11 is better than 7-0!
Why? Because that means she was good enough to be a runner-up 11 times. That is better than losing before the final, which is what the 7-0 player would have done.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Good points!
A lot of people don't seem to get this.

Let's say player A beats player B in the final. Then, next time, player A loses in the fourth round, and player B goes on to win the tournament. just by going by those 2 tournaments, a lot of people would say player A did better because he won the head-to-head. What they don't seem to realize is that they are giving more credit to the player who lost in the 4th round than the player who was the runner up!!

Another example is Evonne Goolagong going 7-11 in GS finals. I say that 7-11 is better than 7-0!
Why? Because that means she was good enough to be a runner-up 11 times. That is better than losing before the final, which is what the 7-0 player would have done.
The real difference between Evert and Navratilova, is that Evert got to the penultimate RD of these slams regardless of her experience level or surface, while Martina failed to get to the penultimate round unless the collective circumstances favored it. Martina did not meet Evert very often in those finals, under circumstances that were not already ideal for her to beat her. Especially on Wimbledon grass, Evert somehow squeezed out tricky matches in Fourth Rd, QF and Semifinal matches. that were precarious from 1973 forward . Martina did not even reach her first final on the slower surfaces at the US Open - until 1981.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Looks like Turnbull lost nine major doubles finals to Navratilova, who was partnered by both Shriver and King. Tougher opposition than Casals faced in her wins.
I doubt that I would rate Casals higher than Turnbull as a doubles player.
Acquiring and keeping a quality doubles partner is part of what I am measuring, when I look at a team result. Your reputation as a winner, and a solid team partner, is something you fight hard to acquire and that is a huge part of what gets you offers by the best in the world. Martina got and kept better quality partners happy that they picked her, so those partnerships lasted and the titles accumulated. If your partners are tier 2 rather than tier 1, and revolving... its because you are a tier 2 doubles player yourself.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The real difference between Evert and Navratilova, is that Evert got to the penultimate RD of these slams regardless of her experience level or surface, while Martina failed to get to the penultimate round unless the collective circumstances favored it. Martina did not meet Evert very often in those finals, under circumstances that were not already ideal for her to beat her. Especially on Wimbledon grass, Evert somehow squeezed out tricky matches in Fourth Rd, QF and Semifinal matches. that were precarious from 1973 forward . Martina did not even reach her first final on the slower surfaces at the US Open - until 1981.
Acquiring and keeping a quality doubles partner is part of what I am measuring, when I look at a team result. Your reputation as a winner, and a solid team partner, is something you fight hard to acquire and that is a huge part of what gets you offers by the best in the world. Martina got and kept better quality partners happy that they picked her, so those partnerships lasted and the titles accumulated. If your partners are tier 2 rather than tier 1, and revolving... its because you are a tier 2 doubles player yourself.
No, that does not seem to be the case here.
I doubt that Casals was a more attractive doubles partner than Turnbull based on merit alone or even compatibility of playing styles.
 

JW10S

Hall of Fame
This is a hard thing to do because there have been so many great US players. This is based on career achievements as opposed to level of play, which I believe usually improves over time:

Men's (I do not include Lendl because he became a US citizen near the end of his career)
1 Tilden
2 Gonzales
3 Sampras
4 Budge (he would have been higher if his peak was not shortened by injury)
5 Kramer
6 Connors
7 McEnroe
8 Agassi
9 Vines
10 Riggs
11 Trabert
12 Ashe
13 Courier
14 Johnston
15 Roddick
16 Chang
17 Smith
18 Seixas
19 Patty
20 Schroeder

Women I include Navratilova because she became a US citizen before she started winning slams, but not Monica Seles because she was not a US citizen in the best part of her career.
1 Serena Williams
2 Martina Navratilova
3 Helen Wills Moody
4 Chris Evert
5 Billie Jean King
6 Maureen Connolly
7 Venus Williams
8 Alice Marble
9 Pauline Betz
10 Doris Hart
11 Margaret Osborne Dupont
12 Louise Brough
13 Althea Gibson
14 Helen Jacobs
15 Shirley Fry
16 Lindsay Davenport
17 Tracy Austin
18 Jennifer Capriati
19 Darlene Hard
20 Nancy Richey
Pretty good lists, but Smith should rank above Chang because he won 2 Grand Slam singles titles, won multiple Grand Slam doubles titles, and played singles and doubles in Davis Cup. Chang only won one Grand Slam singles.
 
Agree with that. Smith also won more tournaments than Chang, and won a Masters and a WCT Final. Obviously, there are a lot of close calls, but certainly a reasonable list.
 
Top