Top 20 women's tennis players, all time

[buscemi]

This post is inspired by the recent Margaret Osborne duPont and Louise Brough post. I wonder whether we have general consensus here on the top 20 women's tennis players, all time. Here are the 16 players with 7+ singles Majors (I'm listing them by number of Majors won, but not ranking them in this order):

1. Court: 24​

2. Serena: 23​

3. Graf: 22​

4. Willis: 19​

5. Evert: 18​

5. Navratilova: 18​

7. King: 12​

8. Seles: 9​

8. Connolly: 9​

10. Lenglen: 8​

10. Mallory: 8​

12. Bueno: 7​

12. Chambers: 7​

12. Venus: 7​

12. Goolagong: 7​

12. Henin: 7​

I'm guessing everyone would have 14/16 of these players clearly in their top 20s, with the 2 exceptions being Mallory and Chambers. Chambers won all her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1903-1914, when the competition was comparatively light. She's unranked in the Tennis Channel 128 and #86 in the Tennis Channel 100. Mallory won all her Majors at the U.S. National Championships, from 1915-1926, again when the competition was comparatively light. She's #108 in the Tennis Abstract 128 and #77 in the Tennis Channel 100.

Next, we have the players who won 6 singles Majors: duPont, Brough, Bingley, Bolton, Hart, and Świątek. Bingley won all six of her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1886-1900, again when the competition was comparatively light. Bolton won all six of her Majors at the Australian, from 1937-1951, again with weak competition. duPont, Brough, and Hart are all great retired players. Świątek undoubtedly will be on this list by the time she retires, but is it too soon to add her yet? If we add duPont, Brough, and Hart to the 14 above, we're at 17. If we add Świątek, we're at 18.

Moving to the five Major winners, we have Dod and Cooper, two more turn of the nineteenth century players with all their wins at Wimbledon. Then, there's Akhurst, who won all her Majors at the Australian with weak fields. Next, there's Helen Jacobs who had a solid, but not spectacular, resume, winning her five Majors and losing many other finals to Marble and WIllis.

That takes us to Marble, Betz, and Gibson, three players who likely win many more than five Majors if not for World War II and/or turning pro, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I actually have all three of them above duPont, Brough, and Hart. In particular, Betz was 21-2 against Hart, 18-8 against duPont, and 16-4 against Brough before she was banned from the amateur game for exploring the possibility of going pro just after winning Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships back-to-back. And Gibson and Marble both went pro after winning their last 4 Majors. All three of these players were probably playing better pro tennis for periods while other players were winning Majors (e.g., Betz going 27-7 against Sarah Palfrey Cooke in 1947 while duPont and Brough were winning Wimbledon and the the U.S. National Championships).

So, that really leaves duPont, Brough, Hingis, and Sharapova fighting for the last 2 spots (1, if we include Świątek). It feels to me like Sharapova is fourth in this pecking order. And, while doubles usually helps Hingis, her 13 doubles Majors are far behind the 21 won by duPont and Brough (tied with Shriver for second behind Navratilova).

And so, my list includes 14/16 players with 7+ Majors (Mallory and Chambers excluded), Hart, Betz, Marble, Gibson, Brough, and duPont. Based on Brough having a 24-16 record against duPont, I think I have duPont as #20 and the next to drop out, possibly as soon as Świątek winning her next Major.

So, what does everyone think? Do you have the same top 20? Or do you have one or more of the players I excluded above and/or any players with fewer singles Majors, such as Mandlíková, Clijsters, or Davenport?

 

[martinezownsclay]

I tend to prefer doing pre War 11 rankings seperately from post World War 11. It is almost impossible to try and compare them. Maybe even going further than that and pre World War 11, post World War 11/pre Open Era, then an Open Era ranking, so 3 seperate sets.

However trying to a complete list as it is, I am actually not sure I would have Goolagong in the top 20 at all. She basically has 3 slams at the 3 real slams of her time, so is the equivalent of a 4 slam winner. She spent almost no time at #1, even had there been official rankings then. I have Hingis really easily above her, especialy when factoring in doubles, but even just in singles I have Hingis above her hands down. Had the Australian been a real slam back then, Goolagong at absolute best maybe matches Hingis with 5 slams, but her career in almost every other way is vastly inferior. So if Hingis is someone who is fighting to barely make the top 20, not sure Goolagong would make it at all. I have Brough and Du Pont very easily above Goolagong too, and I don't think it is particularly close. Heck I see you have Hingis outside your top 20, in that case Goolagong definitely does not make it.

I also have never seen an official ranking list that had Goolagong higher than Hingis ever. Look how much higher Tennis Channel had Hingis over Goolagong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time

 

[buscemi]

I tend to prefer doing pre War 11 rankings seperately from post World War 11. It is almost impossible to try and compare them. Maybe even going further than that and pre World War 11, post World War 11/pre Open Era, then an Open Era ranking, so 3 seperate sets.

However trying to a complete list as it is, I am actually not sure I would have Goolagong in the top 20 at all. She basically has 3 slams at the 3 real slams of her time, so is the equivalent of a 4 slam winner. She spent almost no time at #1, even had there been official rankings then. I have Hingis really easily above her, especialy when factoring in doubles, but even just in singles I have Hingis above her hands down. Had the Australian been a real slam back then, Goolagong at absolute best maybe matches Hingis with 5 slams, but her career in almost every other way is vastly inferior. So if Hingis is someone who is fighting to barely make the top 20, not sure Goolagong would make it at all. I have Brough and Du Pont very easily above Goolagong too, and I don't think it is particularly close. Heck I see you have Hingis outside your top 20, in that case Goolagong definitely does not make it.

I also have never seen an official ranking list that had Goolagong higher than Hingis ever. Look how much higher Tennis Channel had Hingis over Goolagong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time

Yeah, I feel like I have a blindspot for Goolagong that has come up in other posts. Looking at lists and records, I does seem like Hingis should be ahead of her. So, Martina is in, and Evonne is out.

 

[pierceforehands]

It is so hard to compare certain eras to another. Trying to do the simple ones first though.

Tier 1 greats/legit contenders for the GOAT- Graf, Navratilova, Serena, Court, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Evert. Those 7 are easily in.

Tier 2 greats- Seles, Connolly, King. These 3 are easily in too.

Tier 3 greats- Betz (considering what she likely achieves without the ban and war she has to atleast be here), Venus, Henin, Bueno, Marble (considering many believe at her peak she beats Lenglen and Wills at theirs, just had a short then amateur career, has to be easily atleast her), Gibson (considering what she faced she also has to be atleast here).

So we already are at 16.

I would say Hingis, Bueno, Hart who has a Career Slam plus 6 majors and considerable time at #1, Brough, Du Pont, Swiatek, Goolagong, Sharapova are the remaining 8 contenders for 4 remaining spots. Goolagong is the easiest elimination so down to 7. I would say Sharapova despite her Career Slam is out with her embarassing record against Serena, and that she was never even a semi dominant player in any era, or any surface, is out. That Maria never defended a slam, never won 2 slams in the same year, never ended a year ranked #1, are all further reasons to cut her. Not to mention no doubles and doping charges as well. I don't think Swiatek makes it right now personally, but since it is a foregone conclusion she will wind up with enough to have to be included I am just going to include her now anyway, to not delay the inevitable. I think Hingis and Bueno are in fact the 2 highest out of this group so going to add them too. That leaves 1 spot out of Hart, Du Pont, Brough. I am going to actually go with Hart due to her Career Slam, and that she is probably the one of those who was most hurt by peak Connolly (although also the luckiest of the 3 by what happened to Maureen), despite that she was arguably 3rd wheel for much of her carer to Du Pont and Brough, so I know that is questionable, but I value the Career Slam highly. Which btw applies to Maria, but her career is still too weak in other ways, amongst this group that is, for it to be enough.

So my top 20 are the obvious 16, Hingis, Bueno, Hart, and mostly just to delay the inevitable Swiatek. Maybe I just didn't want to decide between Brough and Du Pont so it was easier to just keep both are cut both, and I decided on the latter.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I could see Chambers having a case of making the bottom part of the top 20. Not only did she win 7 Wimbledons but at nearly 40 she came close to beating Lenglen in the final. I don't know if this was fully prime/peak Lenglen, especialy as Lenglen only lost 4 games to her in the final the next year, but she was definitely much closer to her prime than Chambers, so Chambers to nearly beat her validates winning that many Wimbledons.

 

[buscemi]

It is so hard to compare certain eras to another. Trying to do the simple ones first though.

Tier 1 greats/legit contenders for the GOAT- Graf, Navratilova, Serena, Court, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Evert. Those 7 are easily in.

Tier 2 greats- Seles, Connolly, King. These 3 are easily in too.

Tier 3 greats- Betz (considering what she likely achieves without the ban and war she has to atleast be here), Venus, Henin, Bueno, Marble (considering many believe at her peak she beats Lenglen and Wills at theirs, just had a short then amateur career, has to be easily atleast her), Gibson (considering what she faced she also has to be atleast here).

So we already are at 16.

I would say Hingis, Bueno, Hart who has a Career Slam plus 6 majors and considerable time at #1, Brough, Du Pont, Swiatek, Goolagong, Sharapova are the remaining 8 contenders for 4 remaining spots. Goolagong is the easiest elimination so down to 7. I would say Sharapova despite her Career Slam is out with her embarassing record against Serena, and that she was never even a semi dominant player in any era, or any surface, is out. That Maria never defended a slam, never won 2 slams in the same year, never ended a year ranked #1, are all further reasons to cut her. Not to mention no doubles and doping charges as well. I don't think Swiatek makes it right now personally, but since it is a foregone conclusion she will wind up with enough to have to be included I am just going to include her now anyway, to not delay the inevitable. I think Hingis and Bueno are in fact the 2 highest out of this group so going to add them too. That leaves 1 spot out of Hart, Du Pont, Brough. I am going to actually go with Hart due to her Career Slam, and that she is probably the one of those who was most hurt by peak Connolly (although also the luckiest of the 3 by what happened to Maureen), despite that she was arguably 3rd wheel for much of her carer to Du Pont and Brough, so I know that is questionable, but I value the Career Slam highly. Which btw applies to Maria, but her career is still too weak in other ways, amongst this group that is, for it to be enough.

So my top 20 are the obvious 16, Hingis, Bueno, Hart, and mostly just to delay the inevitable Swiatek. Maybe I just didn't want to decide between Brough and Du Pont so it was easier to just keep both are cut both, and I decided on the latter.

Okay, sounds like we're reaching a consensus that Goolagong is out. And I agree that we might as well include Świątek, who, if she isn't on the list yet will be soon barring disaster.

Hart, Brough, and duPont seem close for that last spot. I've noted above why I have Brough above duPont, with the 24-16 H2H being a big factor.

Brough and Hart played 33 times, with Hart winning the H2H 17-16. I might need to dig into which matches mattered the most before reaching a result.

 

[buscemi]

I could see Chambers having a case of making the bottom part of the top 20. Not only did she win 7 Wimbledons but at nearly 40 she came close to beating Lenglen in the final. I don't know if this was fully prime/peak Lenglen, especialy as Lenglen only lost 4 games to her in the final the next year, but she was definitely much closer to her prime than Chambers, so Chambers to nearly beat her validates winning that many Wimbledons.

Yeah, I need to look more into Chambers.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Hart, Brough, Du Pont are all so close. They are the 3 players I always have the hardest time ranking vs each other. They are the equivalent of Wilander vs Becker vs Edberg on the mens side, or Connors vs Lendl vs McEnroe. It must have been a super exciting period when you had those 3 battling for years, Fry so close behind them, Gibson coming up, and briefly Connolly totally dominating but Hart and Brough giving her good matches and trying to stop her. I prefer periods, from a fan perspective that have a mix of order (not alphabet soup like the womens game for awhile in the late 2010s heading through the Covid period with 50 possible winners) but competitiveness, without a total dominator, or a GOAT level player at one of their peaks who lords over all. Likewise I think the 80s were about the best times for the men for the same reasons, although I am sure some disagree.

 

[SriVan90]

This post is inspired by the recent Margaret Osborne duPont and Louise Brough post. I wonder whether we have general consensus here on the top 20 women's tennis players, all time. Here are the 16 players with 7+ singles Majors (I'm listing them by number of Majors won, but not ranking them in this order):

1. Court: 24​

2. Serena: 23​

3. Graf: 22​

4. Willis: 19​

5. Evert: 18​

5. Navratilova: 18​

7. King: 12​

8. Seles: 9​

8. Connolly: 9​

10. Lenglen: 8​

10. Mallory: 8​

12. Bueno: 7​

12. Chambers: 7​

12. Venus: 7​

12. Goolagong: 7​

12. Henin: 7​

I'm guessing everyone would have 14/16 of these players clearly in their top 20s, with the 2 exceptions being Mallory and Chambers. Chambers won all her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1903-1914, when the competition was comparatively light. She's unranked in the Tennis Channel 128 and #86 in the Tennis Channel 100. Mallory won all her Majors at the U.S. National Championships, from 1915-1926, again when the competition was comparatively light. She's #108 in the Tennis Abstract 128 and #77 in the Tennis Channel 100.

Next, we have the players who won 6 singles Majors: duPont, Brough, Bingley, Bolton, Hart, and Świątek. Bingley won all six of her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1886-1900, again when the competition was comparatively light. Bolton won all six of her Majors at the Australian, from 1937-1951, again with weak competition. duPont, Brough, and Hart are all great retired players. Świątek undoubtedly will be on this list by the time she retires, but is it too soon to add her yet? If we add duPont, Brough, and Hart to the 14 above, we're at 17. If we add Świątek, we're at 18.

Moving to the five Major winners, we have Dod and Cooper, two more turn of the nineteenth century players with all their wins at Wimbledon. Then, there's Akhurst, who won all her Majors at the Australian with weak fields. Next, there's Helen Jacobs who had a solid, but not spectacular, resume, winning her five Majors and losing many other finals to Marble and WIllis.

That takes us to Marble, Betz, and Gibson, three players who likely win many more than five Majors if not for World War II and/or turning pro, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I actually have all three of them above duPont, Brough, and Hart. In particular, Betz was 21-2 against Hart, 18-8 against duPont, and 16-4 against Brough before she was banned from the amateur game for exploring the possibility of going pro just after winning Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships back-to-back. And Gibson and Marble both went pro after winning their last 4 Majors. All three of these players were probably playing better pro tennis for periods while other players were winning Majors (e.g., Betz going 27-7 against Sarah Palfrey Cooke in 1947 while duPont and Brough were winning Wimbledon and the the U.S. National Championships).

So, that really leaves duPont, Brough, Hingis, and Sharapova fighting for the last 2 spots (1, if we include Świątek). It feels to me like Sharapova is fourth in this pecking order. And, while doubles usually helps Hingis, her 13 doubles Majors are far behind the 21 won by duPont and Brough (tied with Shriver for second behind Navratilova).

And so, my list includes 14/16 players with 7+ Majors (Mallory and Chambers excluded), Hart, Betz, Marble, Gibson, Brough, and duPont. Based on Brough having a 24-16 record against duPont, I think I have duPont as #20 and the next to drop out, possibly as soon as Świątek winning her next Major.

So, what does everyone think? Do you have the same top 20? Or do you have one or more of the players I excluded above and/or any players with fewer singles Majors, such as Mandlíková, Clijsters, or Davenport?

This is the list most Tennis Greats Agree with : 1) Serena 2) Graf 3) Navratilova 4) Court 5) Evert 6) King 7) Seles 8) Venus 9) Lenglen 10) Henin 11) Swiatek 12) Maureen 13) Helen 14) Sharapova 15) Hingis 16) Goolagong 17) Bueno 18) Gibson 19) Davenport 20) Vicario

 

[Dan Lobb]

This post is inspired by the recent Margaret Osborne duPont and Louise Brough post. I wonder whether we have general consensus here on the top 20 women's tennis players, all time. Here are the 16 players with 7+ singles Majors (I'm listing them by number of Majors won, but not ranking them in this order):

1. Court: 24​

2. Serena: 23​

3. Graf: 22​

4. Willis: 19​

5. Evert: 18​

5. Navratilova: 18​

7. King: 12​

8. Seles: 9​

8. Connolly: 9​

10. Lenglen: 8​

10. Mallory: 8​

12. Bueno: 7​

12. Chambers: 7​

12. Venus: 7​

12. Goolagong: 7​

12. Henin: 7​

I'm guessing everyone would have 14/16 of these players clearly in their top 20s, with the 2 exceptions being Mallory and Chambers. Chambers won all her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1903-1914, when the competition was comparatively light. She's unranked in the Tennis Channel 128 and #86 in the Tennis Channel 100. Mallory won all her Majors at the U.S. National Championships, from 1915-1926, again when the competition was comparatively light. She's #108 in the Tennis Abstract 128 and #77 in the Tennis Channel 100.

Next, we have the players who won 6 singles Majors: duPont, Brough, Bingley, Bolton, Hart, and Świątek. Bingley won all six of her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1886-1900, again when the competition was comparatively light. Bolton won all six of her Majors at the Australian, from 1937-1951, again with weak competition. duPont, Brough, and Hart are all great retired players. Świątek undoubtedly will be on this list by the time she retires, but is it too soon to add her yet? If we add duPont, Brough, and Hart to the 14 above, we're at 17. If we add Świątek, we're at 18.

Moving to the five Major winners, we have Dod and Cooper, two more turn of the nineteenth century players with all their wins at Wimbledon. Then, there's Akhurst, who won all her Majors at the Australian with weak fields. Next, there's Helen Jacobs who had a solid, but not spectacular, resume, winning her five Majors and losing many other finals to Marble and WIllis.

That takes us to Marble, Betz, and Gibson, three players who likely win many more than five Majors if not for World War II and/or turning pro, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I actually have all three of them above duPont, Brough, and Hart. In particular, Betz was 21-2 against Hart, 18-8 against duPont, and 16-4 against Brough before she was banned from the amateur game for exploring the possibility of going pro just after winning Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships back-to-back. And Gibson and Marble both went pro after winning their last 4 Majors. All three of these players were probably playing better pro tennis for periods while other players were winning Majors (e.g., Betz going 27-7 against Sarah Palfrey Cooke in 1947 while duPont and Brough were winning Wimbledon and the the U.S. National Championships).

So, that really leaves duPont, Brough, Hingis, and Sharapova fighting for the last 2 spots (1, if we include Świątek). It feels to me like Sharapova is fourth in this pecking order. And, while doubles usually helps Hingis, her 13 doubles Majors are far behind the 21 won by duPont and Brough (tied with Shriver for second behind Navratilova).

And so, my list includes 14/16 players with 7+ Majors (Mallory and Chambers excluded), Hart, Betz, Marble, Gibson, Brough, and duPont. Based on Brough having a 24-16 record against duPont, I think I have duPont as #20 and the next to drop out, possibly as soon as Świątek winning her next Major.

So, what does everyone think? Do you have the same top 20? Or do you have one or more of the players I excluded above and/or any players with fewer singles Majors, such as Mandlíková, Clijsters, or Davenport?

Most tennis aficionados will take the slam count as definitive. Which is why Serena tried so very hard to get this record.

 

[buscemi]

Most tennis aficionados will take the slam count as definitive. Which is why Serena tried so very hard to get this record.

Do you have any examples?

The Tennis Channel 100 (in 2012), had it as #1 Graf; #2 Navratilova; #3 Court; #4 Evert

 

[Dan Lobb]

Do you have any examples?

The Tennis Channel 100 (in 2012), had it as #1 Graf; #2 Navratilova; #3 Court; #4 Evert

The Tennis Channel is not definitive. What is well known is Serena's mighty quest to reach the slam count of Court, which dominated the tennis headlines for many years.

 

[Hard Court]

The 20 (not in this order) I would go with would be:

Court
S. Williams
Graf
Willis
Evert
Navratilova
King
Seles
Connolly
Lenglen
Bueno
V. Williams
Goolagong
Henin
Gibson
Betz
Marble
Hart
Brough
Osborne

Gibson, Marble and Betz dominated the game and went pro after relatively brief amateur careers. They certainly belong.
Chambers and Mallory just miss the cut. you could make a case for them. Wish we had more data we could use. Swiatek is getting there. If she retired today it would be not quite.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

This is the list most Tennis Greats Agree with : 1) Serena 2) Graf 3) Navratilova 4) Court 5) Evert 6) King 7) Seles 8) Venus 9) Lenglen 10) Henin 11) Swiatek 12) Maureen 13) Helen 14) Sharapova 15) Hingis 16) Goolagong 17) Bueno 18) Gibson 19) Davenport 20) Vicario

I am not entirely sure how experts rate them vs each other, but I would say Bueno ever being above Goolagong would be a total joke. As much as I love Evonne she won the 2 biggest events of the day 3 times vs Bueno's 7. She was YE#1 0 times (or 1 if you give her 71, but most give that to King) to Bueno's 3 or 4 (clearly 60, 61, 64, and she has a case vs King for 66 per experts, similar to Goolagong in 71 vs King). Bueno did far better and was far more competitive vs all the same people both played, particularly Court and King, and King even got mostly a washed up version of Bueno as most of their matches were mid 66 onwards. No way could I ever accept the idea Bueno could ever be behind Goolagong, I am sure even @EvonneFedererBorgster would agree on that, and she is the biggest Evonne fan on this site.

I also have never seen a single expert rank or hardly any fans rank Hingis behind Sharapova. And unlike Goolagong and Bueno I am sure how experts rank them as I have seen rankings involving those two thrown out much more often than Goolagong and Bueno, and I dont remember the last time I ever saw or heard a tennis great, expert, writer, ex playing great, rank Maria above Martina Hingis.

Swiatek being above Maureen, atleast at this point is a truly bad joke, and far worse than even Goolagong ever being above Bueno. However since most of the old experts are dying off, and recency bias is ridiculously strong, unfortunately it is possible that is how many see things. So you may be right, but it is sinful if true.

 

[Hard Court]

Bueno and Goolagong played all the same people? Goolagong went up against Evert and Navratilova for a good chunk of her career. Bueno did not. Goolagong also won two of those Aussie title against Evert and Navratilova.

Goolagong won 86 titles to Bueno's 66.
Goolagong got to 18 GS finals to Bueno's 12.
Goolagong won a slightly higher % of matches, 81 to 80.
This has to be pretty close. Goolagong has to be one of the top 20 players without question.

 

[martinezownsclay]

My top 20 in order would probably go:

1. Graf
2. Serena
3. Navratilova
4. Lenglen
5. Evert
6. Court
7. Wills
8. Connolly- would be #1 easily without her accident
9. Seles- would probably be top 5 without the stabbing, and possibly #1
10. Marble
11. King
12. Venus
13. Henin
14. Hingis
15. Bueno
16. Gibson
17. Betz- possibly should be higher, @buscemi knows far more about her than me
18. Brough
19. Hart
20. Du Pont

Honorable mentions who just missed- Swiatek, Clijsters, Davenport, Sharapova, Chambers, Fry

 

[Racquet_smash]

Sharapova's shoulder injuries robbed her of a much higher spot in this rankings. What a shame.

 

[buscemi]

My top 20 in order would probably go:

1. Graf
2. Serena
3. Navratilova
4. Lenglen
5. Evert
6. Court
7. Wills
8. Connolly- would be #1 easily without her accident
9. Seles- would probably be top 5 without the stabbing, and possibly #1
10. Marble
11. King
12. Venus
13. Henin
14. Hingis
15. Bueno
16. Gibson
17. Betz- possibly should be higher, @buscemi knows far more about her than me
18. Brough
19. Hart
20. Du Pont

Honorable mentions who just missed- Swiatek, Clijsters, Davenport, Sharapova, Chambers, Fry

I like seeing Marble at #10. I need to learn more about her game. 128 consecutive wins across amateur and pro matches is incredible. Do you have any info about who she played after turning pro, other than Mary Hardwick, whom she apparently beat 58-3.

 

[SriVan90]

I am not entirely sure how experts rate them vs each other, but I would say Bueno ever being above Goolagong would be a total joke. As much as I love Evonne she won the 2 biggest events of the day 3 times vs Bueno's 7. She was YE#1 0 times (or 1 if you give her 71, but most give that to King) to Bueno's 3 or 4 (clearly 60, 61, 64, and she has a case vs King for 66 per experts, similar to Goolagong in 71 vs King). Bueno did far better and was far more competitive vs all the same people both played, particularly Court and King, and King even got mostly a washed up version of Bueno as most of their matches were mid 66 onwards. No way could I ever accept the idea Bueno could ever be behind Goolagong, I am sure even @EvonneFedererBorgster would agree on that, and she is the biggest Evonne fan on this site.

I also have never seen a single expert rank or hardly any fans rank Hingis behind Sharapova. And unlike Goolagong and Bueno I am sure how experts rank them as I have seen rankings involving those two thrown out much more often than Goolagong and Bueno, and I dont remember the last time I ever saw or heard a tennis great, expert, writer, ex playing great, rank Maria above Martina Hingis.

Swiatek being above Maureen, atleast at this point is a truly bad joke, and far worse than even Goolagong ever being above Bueno. However since most of the old experts are dying off, and recency bias is ridiculously strong, unfortunately it is possible that is how many see things. So you may be right, but it is sinful if true.

Sharapova will be above Hingis in my list as she was consistent for more years at the top of the game than Hingis was and achieved career grand slam. Swiatek leads the grand slam count of the decade so cannot overlook her achievements. Goolagong defeated Court, King, Evert at Wimbledon to win the title. Navratilova at Australian open. She had a game to beat these all time greats which gives her an edge over Bueno.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Sharapova will be above Hingis in my list as she was consistent for more years at the top of the game than Hingis was and achieved career grand slam. Swiatek leads the grand slam count of the decade so cannot overlook her achievements. Goolagong defeated Court, King, Evert at Wimbledon to win the title. Navratilova at Australian open. She had a game to beat these all time greats which gives her an edge over Bueno.

To each their own.

Sharapova could never be above Hingis for me since while I recognize the career slam and I agree it has a lot of value, as I said she was never even a semi dominant player. She was never once, even for a second, the best player in the world. I could go through every year and phase of her career and there is not one moment she was possibly better than 2nd or 3rd best, even a lesser player overall like Azarenka or Mauresmo were each the best for a brief period with Maria only 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best behind them at the same time. That is a huge negative. Especialy compared to Hingis who dominated 97 where she was by far the best player, spent a ton of time at #1 from 97-2001, and while some of that time was controversial, was still arguably the best player most of 97-2000, especialy 97-99. Maria never even won 2 slams in the same year, never defended a slam title, never even won a slam in back to back years, and the only slam she got a 2nd time was in reality her worst surface, at the French Open. Hingis blows Maria away in so many things, more YEC titles, a ton more time at #1, many more titles, doubles performance, it is just hard for me to see Maria over her for nothing but the career slam. Sharapova has better longevity I agree, but Hingis also had more consistency in her prime than Sharapova ever had as well, in addition to much greater dominance.

I see your point on Swiatek but Connolly has many more slams at this point (9 to 6), and won all 9 slams she played aged 16 to 19 before her career was ended by a tragic horse accident that left her semi crippled and unable to play professionaly again.

Goolagong did not beat Court at the Australian Open ever. She did beat Evert there once, and Navratilova WAY before her prime there once in 75. I don't see how having the game to beat all time greats is an edge over Bueno who beat a peak Court twice in less than a year (63 US Open, 64 Wimbledon) to win slams, beat King in the semis of Wimbledon 65 and has an almost equal head to head with her. As I said in another comment, Bueno has much better records vs the greats both she and Goolagong played (Bueno did not play Evert or Navratilova, and Goolagong did not play people like Hard or Jones, so I am referring to people like Court or King) than Goolagong has.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Bueno and Goolagong played all the same people? Goolagong went up against Evert and Navratilova for a good chunk of her career. Bueno did not. Goolagong also won two of those Aussie title against Evert and Navratilova.

Goolagong won 86 titles to Bueno's 66.
Goolagong got to 18 GS finals to Bueno's 12.
Goolagong won a slightly higher % of matches, 81 to 80.
This has to be pretty close. Goolagong has to be one of the top 20 players without question.

Perhaps you have reading comprehension issues, but I never specifically said or even implied Bueno and Goolagong played all the same people. I said the people that both did play often (which would be people like Court and King) Bueno has a significantly better record against. Despite that King has a lot of her matches with Bueno when she was pretty much done by illness and various injuries and far below her best to boost, while Goolagong got the benefit of a lot of matches vs old, broken kneed King, and still has a worse record than Bueno has.

Beating Navratilova in 75 is NOT a big win, which if you were as knowledgable about that period in tennis history as you like to pretend to be, you would already know, and not need explained to you. The very late developing Navratilova was multiple years before the start of even what could be considered her semi prime period at that point. Goolagong in fact would have been the heavy favorite for their encounter in the final that year, and it would have been a huge upset if she had lost, and you are acting like that was some big win for her. And yes I am already aware Navratilova did reach 2 slam finals that year at super depleted slams at the Australian and French Open, the Australian being a non legit slam during that time as all have already noted, and the French to a lesser extent often the same, especialy in the 70s when it often conflicted with WTT. She would not even reach the finals of another slam until 78, further illustrating my point. At that point in time Goolagong was considered the 2nd best player in the world behind only Evert, far above Navratilova. In fairness Navratilova was already a quite good player at this point, but Navratilova was considered at best 5th or 6th best, firmly behind Evert, Goolagong, aging with bad knees King, Wade, and arguably the even more aging and semi retired Court (they split their matches this year so they were close). Her one and only big win for any of her Australian Opens was Evert in 74, but on grass she would have been favored over Evert at this point anyway, and even this win benefited from it not being seen as a real slam, as if it were King almost certainly plays, and King would have been the clear favorite over Goolagong had she played, especialy as Goolagong never beat King in a slam again after 71. So if that is some attempt of a rebuttal to fully legitamize all 4 of her Australian Opens it is a complete fail.

As for Goolagong's slam finals vs Bueno's, the only thing that matters is comparing their non Australian Open slam finals. Each have 11, so that is a tie, and they are even there. The one and only edge Goolagong has over Bueno are more titles which is a legitimate advantage, but that does not even come close to overcoming Bueno having a ton more time at #1, better performances by far vs the best players of their respective eras, over doubles the titles at what anyone familiar with tennis during that time period (aka not you) recognize as by a huge margin the 2 biggest events at the time- Wimbledon and the US Open. Additionaly Bueno doing better in doubles (although both did very well), and having to deal with a shortened career by health problems and even serious health problems throughout her career, and still achieving the better and easily more prolific career of the two.

 

[SriVan90]

To each their own.

Sharapova could never be above Hingis for me since while I recognize the career slam and I agree it has a lot of value, as I said she was never even a semi dominant player. She was never once, even for a second, the best player in the world. I could go through every year and phase of her career and there is not one moment she was possibly better than 2nd or 3rd best, even a lesser player overall like Azarenka or Mauresmo were each the best for a brief period with Maria only 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best behind them at the same time. That is a huge negative. Especialy compared to Hingis who dominated 97 where she was by far the best player, spent a ton of time at #1 from 97-2001, and while some of that time was controversial, was still arguably the best player most of 97-2000, especialy 97-99. Maria never even won 2 slams in the same year, never defended a slam title, never even won a slam in back to back years, and the only slam she got a 2nd time was in reality her worst surface, at the French Open. Hingis blows Maria away in so many things, more YEC titles, a ton more time at #1, many more titles, doubles performance, it is just hard for me to see Maria over her for nothing but the career slam. Sharapova has better longevity I agree, but Hingis also had more consistency in her prime than Sharapova ever had as well, in addition to much greater dominance.

I see your point on Swiatek but Connolly has many more slams at this point (9 to 6), and won all 9 slams she played aged 16 to 19 before her career was ended by a tragic horse accident that left her semi crippled and unable to play professionaly again.

Goolagong did not beat Court at the Australian Open ever. She did beat Evert there once, and Navratilova WAY before her prime there once in 75. I don't see how having the game to beat all time greats is an edge over Bueno who beat a peak Court twice in less than a year (63 US Open, 64 Wimbledon) to win slams, beat King in the semis of Wimbledon 65 and has an almost equal head to head with her. As I said in another comment, Bueno has much better records vs the greats both she and Goolagong played (Bueno did not play Evert or Navratilova, and Goolagong did not play people like Hard or Jones, so I am referring to people like Court or King) than Goolagong has.

good points. yeah can also go with these changes.

 

[BTURNER]

This post is inspired by the recent Margaret Osborne duPont and Louise Brough post. I wonder whether we have general consensus here on the top 20 women's tennis players, all time. Here are the 16 players with 7+ singles Majors (I'm listing them by number of Majors won, but not ranking them in this order):

1. Court: 24​

2. Serena: 23​

3. Graf: 22​

4. Willis: 19​

5. Evert: 18​

5. Navratilova: 18​

7. King: 12​

8. Seles: 9​

8. Connolly: 9​

10. Lenglen: 8​

10. Mallory: 8​

12. Bueno: 7​

12. Chambers: 7​

12. Venus: 7​

12. Goolagong: 7​

12. Henin: 7​

I'm guessing everyone would have 14/16 of these players clearly in their top 20s, with the 2 exceptions being Mallory and Chambers. Chambers won all her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1903-1914, when the competition was comparatively light. She's unranked in the Tennis Channel 128 and #86 in the Tennis Channel 100. Mallory won all her Majors at the U.S. National Championships, from 1915-1926, again when the competition was comparatively light. She's #108 in the Tennis Abstract 128 and #77 in the Tennis Channel 100.

Next, we have the players who won 6 singles Majors: duPont, Brough, Bingley, Bolton, Hart, and Świątek. Bingley won all six of her Majors at Wimbledon, from 1886-1900, again when the competition was comparatively light. Bolton won all six of her Majors at the Australian, from 1937-1951, again with weak competition. duPont, Brough, and Hart are all great retired players. Świątek undoubtedly will be on this list by the time she retires, but is it too soon to add her yet? If we add duPont, Brough, and Hart to the 14 above, we're at 17. If we add Świątek, we're at 18.

Moving to the five Major winners, we have Dod and Cooper, two more turn of the nineteenth century players with all their wins at Wimbledon. Then, there's Akhurst, who won all her Majors at the Australian with weak fields. Next, there's Helen Jacobs who had a solid, but not spectacular, resume, winning her five Majors and losing many other finals to Marble and WIllis.

That takes us to Marble, Betz, and Gibson, three players who likely win many more than five Majors if not for World War II and/or turning pro, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I actually have all three of them above duPont, Brough, and Hart. In particular, Betz was 21-2 against Hart, 18-8 against duPont, and 16-4 against Brough before she was banned from the amateur game for exploring the possibility of going pro just after winning Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships back-to-back. And Gibson and Marble both went pro after winning their last 4 Majors. All three of these players were probably playing better pro tennis for periods while other players were winning Majors (e.g., Betz going 27-7 against Sarah Palfrey Cooke in 1947 while duPont and Brough were winning Wimbledon and the the U.S. National Championships).

So, that really leaves duPont, Brough, Hingis, and Sharapova fighting for the last 2 spots (1, if we include Świątek). It feels to me like Sharapova is fourth in this pecking order. And, while doubles usually helps Hingis, her 13 doubles Majors are far behind the 21 won by duPont and Brough (tied with Shriver for second behind Navratilova).

And so, my list includes 14/16 players with 7+ Majors (Mallory and Chambers excluded), Hart, Betz, Marble, Gibson, Brough, and duPont. Based on Brough having a 24-16 record against duPont, I think I have duPont as #20 and the next to drop out, possibly as soon as Świątek winning her next Major.

So, what does everyone think? Do you have the same top 20? Or do you have one or more of the players I excluded above and/or any players with fewer singles Majors, such as Mandlíková, Clijsters, or Davenport?

Its an excellent post, but the premise of the entire exercise completely falls apart the moment you referenced 'doubles', as all these efforts that we all engage in to compare careers do, because we do not come to a clear agreement about what specific role doubles (and mixed) should be playing and most of these women played doubles and have a clear doubles record that is mostly unexamined.

If doubles helps Hingis, it has to help everyone in the sport who has won in doubles get on this list and push others off. It would be nice know how much help everyone is getting from their doubles titles or not getting.

If it's seen as a 'tiebreaker' than that is a position that deserves some scrutiny because there are going to be a lot of ties to break. If you are going to completely ignore it which was what I thought, until I saw it pop up, that is a position that merits discussion. If you give doubles 1/2 credit, or 1/4th credit, we need to know that too. We all tend to just drop it into these discussions, when we talk about Martina, or Margaret or King, or here Hingis and then it just as quickly evaporates. Everyone's position on this list is dramatically different, way up, way down.

I think we need a consistent position clearly stated to guide us. What do we want to do???

 

[buscemi]

Its an excellent post, but the premise of the entire exercise completely falls apart the moment you referenced 'doubles', as all these efforts that we all engage in to compare careers do, because we do not come to a clear agreement about what specific role doubles (and mixed) should be playing and most of these women played doubles and have a clear doubles record that is mostly unexamined.

If doubles helps Hingis, it has to help everyone in the sport who has won in doubles get on this list and push others off. It would be nice know how much help everyone is getting from their doubles titles or not getting.

If it's seen as a 'tiebreaker' than that is a position that deserves some scrutiny because there are going to be a lot of ties to break. If you are going to completely ignore it which was what I thought, until I saw it pop up, that is a position that merits discussion. If you give doubles 1/2 credit, or 1/4th credit, we need to know that too. We all tend to just drop it into these discussions, when we talk about Martina, or Margaret or King, or here Hingis and then it just as quickly evaporates. Everyone's position on this list is dramatically different, way up, way down.

What do we want to do???

That's fair. I was trying to make that point that, even if we did count doubles for Hingis, it wouldn't help her against duPont and Brough.

 

[BTURNER]

That's fair. I was trying to make that point that, even if we did count doubles for Hingis, it wouldn't help her against duPont and Brough.

We don't know how much it helps Dupont, Brough, Sanchez-Vicario, Pam Shriver anyone at all... I don't have a strong position myself, but I do think one has to be enunciated for the exercise to continue. What do you see as the role of doubles in your OP and I will run with it!!

 

[buscemi]

We don't know how much it helps Dupont, Brough, Sanchez-Vicario, Pam Shriver anyone at all... I don't have a strong position myself, but I do think one has to be enunciated for the exercise to continue. What do you see as the role of doubles in your OP and I will run with it!!

I say we stick strictly with singles for this exercise.

 

[martinezownsclay]

When it comes to doubles I say it is a tiebreaker when singles are quite close, but no more than that.

 

[BTURNER]

When it comes to doubles I say it is a tiebreaker when singles are quite close, but no more than that.

That is the one position, I don't understand. Either Doubles is too different to consider at all as irrelevant, or it's a part of the sport that deserves some respect. When you use it as a tiebreaker, its serving your personal purpose in this discussion and comes and goes at your whims and bias. It becomes your trump card to play or not because you get to call the 'tie'.

 

[martinezownsclay]

That is the one position, I don't understand. Either Doubles is too different to consider at all as irrelevant, or it's a part of the sport that deserves some respect. When you use it as a tiebreaker, its serving your personal purpose in this discussion and comes and goes at your whims and bias. It becomes your trump card to play or not because you get to call the 'tie'.

Naw on the latter, I don't care enough about a bunch of people who 99% I never met; I have met occasionaly fairly recent player at events, most of whom would never come up in an all time discussion; and whose lives don't affect me in anyway to play cards for personal purpose or bias. That would be way too much effort for not enough personal vindication or personal reward of any sort. It is simply about the importance I see doubles having, a bit, but not that much. Maybe if I were born to be regularly following before doubles began sucking and became a side show I would feel differently, who knows. I still think it has some value, which is why I choose to use it as a tiebreaker of sorts when the players are quite close in singles, and the doubles achievements/difference is significant enough, but am not seeing it as any more than that.

 

[BTURNER]

Naw on the latter, I don't care enough about a bunch of people who 99% I never met; I have met occasionaly fairly recent player at events, most of whom would never come up in an all time discussion; and whose lives don't affect me in anyway to play cards for personal purpose or bias. That would be way too much effort for not enough personal vindication or personal reward of any sort. It is simply about the importance I see doubles having, a bit, but not that much. Maybe if I were born to be regularly following before doubles began sucking and became a side show I would feel differently, who knows. I still think it has some value, which is why I choose to use it as a tiebreaker of sorts when the players are quite close in singles, and the doubles achievements/difference is significant enough, but am not seeing it as any more than that.

In short, you bring doubles achievements out on a whim, and put them back in the closet and ignore them ... on a whim.

 

[martinezownsclay]

In short, you bring doubles achievements out on a whim, and put them back in the closet and ignore them ... on a whim.

What can I say. I give them the value I think they merit. Which is nothing more than a tiebreaker when they are relatively close in singles. Which is still something, and more than nothing, but not much more than that. It is often a reason I rank McEnroe above Lendl and Connors when I hate McEnroe the most of the 3, especialy compared to Connors who I love while I find McEnroe a POS and spoiled brat on a personal level, when if it were just singles he would be just barely behind both probably, so you can't accuse me of bias. Also if Navratilova were a bit closer to singles I would rank her over Graf for doubles, but I don't think overall she is quite close enough so I don't, but if she had say just a couple more slams or a Grand Slam like Graf has, I probably would, and Navratilova is about my least favorite person ever in the sport. The only thing you can accuse me of is not agreeing with the value I place on doubles, either too much or too little, but as is clear nobody can really agree on that.

 

[1650]

Its an excellent post, but the premise of the entire exercise completely falls apart the moment you referenced 'doubles', as all these efforts that we all engage in to compare careers do, because we do not come to a clear agreement about what specific role doubles (and mixed) should be playing and most of these women played doubles and have a clear doubles record that is mostly unexamined.

If doubles helps Hingis, it has to help everyone in the sport who has won in doubles get on this list and push others off. It would be nice know how much help everyone is getting from their doubles titles or not getting.

If it's seen as a 'tiebreaker' than that is a position that deserves some scrutiny because there are going to be a lot of ties to break. If you are going to completely ignore it which was what I thought, until I saw it pop up, that is a position that merits discussion. If you give doubles 1/2 credit, or 1/4th credit, we need to know that too. We all tend to just drop it into these discussions, when we talk about Martina, or Margaret or King, or here Hingis and then it just as quickly evaporates. Everyone's position on this list is dramatically different, way up, way down.

I think we need a consistent position clearly stated to guide us. What do we want to do???

I have a hard time ignoring doubles completely, but perhaps its importance has waned over time just as the prestige of, say, the Australian Open has waxed. Most top players today don't participate in doubles to the extent that they used to, so the weight of the achievements change depending on the era, I guess. Which doesn't really help solve the issue of using it as criteria. But when you read articles and results from before, let's say, 1970, doubles is talked about seemingly with as much attention and prestige as singles.

I just look at a player like Hart, who won all three Wimbledon finals in one day and has every title at every slam, and I think doubles/mixed elevates her legacy a lot. Hingis was one game away from a boxed set herself. It feels like such a huge achievement that I can't ignore it in my own personal rankings, but I don't know exactly how to turn it into a quantifiable metric.

 

[thrust]

It is so hard to compare certain eras to another. Trying to do the simple ones first though.

Tier 1 greats/legit contenders for the GOAT- Graf, Navratilova, Serena, Court, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Evert. Those 7 are easily in.

Tier 2 greats- Seles, Connolly, King. These 3 are easily in too.

Tier 3 greats- Betz (considering what she likely achieves without the ban and war she has to atleast be here), Venus, Henin, Bueno, Marble (considering many believe at her peak she beats Lenglen and Wills at theirs, just had a short then amateur career, has to be easily atleast her), Gibson (considering what she faced she also has to be atleast here).

So we already are at 16.

I would say Hingis, Bueno, Hart who has a Career Slam plus 6 majors and considerable time at #1, Brough, Du Pont, Swiatek, Goolagong, Sharapova are the remaining 8 contenders for 4 remaining spots. Goolagong is the easiest elimination so down to 7. I would say Sharapova despite her Career Slam is out with her embarassing record against Serena, and that she was never even a semi dominant player in any era, or any surface, is out. That Maria never defended a slam, never won 2 slams in the same year, never ended a year ranked #1, are all further reasons to cut her. Not to mention no doubles and doping charges as well. I don't think Swiatek makes it right now personally, but since it is a foregone conclusion she will wind up with enough to have to be included I am just going to include her now anyway, to not delay the inevitable. I think Hingis and Bueno are in fact the 2 highest out of this group so going to add them too. That leaves 1 spot out of Hart, Du Pont, Brough. I am going to actually go with Hart due to her Career Slam, and that she is probably the one of those who was most hurt by peak Connolly (although also the luckiest of the 3 by what happened to Maureen), despite that she was arguably 3rd wheel for much of her carer to Du Pont and Brough, so I know that is questionable, but I value the Career Slam highly. Which btw applies to Maria, but her career is still too weak in other ways, amongst this group that is, for it to be enough.

So my top 20 are the obvious 16, Hingis, Bueno, Hart, and mostly just to delay the inevitable Swiatek. Maybe I just didn't want to decide between Brough and Du Pont so it was easier to just keep both are cut both, and I decided on the latter.

du Pont never played in Australia, she won the French twice and was ranked #1- 4 years. Brough never reached a French final and was ranked #1 only one year. Wills won 19 majors out of 22 or 23 she ever played. I do think one has to separate eras when ranking tennis players. The same is true with golf.

 

[buscemi]

du Pont never played in Australia, she won the French twice and was ranked #1- 4 years. Brough never reached a French final and was ranked #1 only one year. Wills won 19 majors out of 22 or 23 she ever played. I do think one has to separate eras when ranking tennis players. The same is true with golf.

duPont vs. Brough remains such a close call for me.

Looking at their singles Major winning years:

1946: duPont won Roland Garros (Betz was the best player of the year);​

1947: duPont won Wimbledon and was 39-4; Brough won the U.S. National Championships and was 38-3;​

1948: Brough won Wimbledon and was 40-3; duPont won the U.S. National Championships and was 25-3;​

1949: duPont won Roland Garros and the U.S. National Championships and was 33-4; Brough won Wimbledon and was 30-3;​

1950: Brough won the Australian and Wimbledon and was 42-9; duPont won the U.S. National Championships and was 26-4;​

1955: Brough won Wimbledon and was 40-5​

Really, really close.

 

[thrust]

duPont vs. Brough remains such a close call for me.

Looking at their singles Major winning years:

1946: duPont won Roland Garros (Betz was the best player of the year);​

1947: duPont won Wimbledon and was 39-4; Brough won the U.S. National Championships and was 38-3;​

1948: Brough won Wimbledon and was 40-3; duPont won the U.S. National Championships and was 25-3;​

1949: duPont won Roland Garros and the U.S. National Championships and was 33-4; Brough won Wimbledon and was 30-3;​

1950: Brough won the Australian and Wimbledon and was 42-9; duPont won the U.S. National Championships and was 26-4;​

1955: Brough won Wimbledon and was 40-5​

Really, really close.

Indeed, they are very close. I give du Pont the slight advantage because she was able to win majors on two surfaces, whereas, Brough was only able to win a major on grass.