Top 40 women players of the Open Era

[thalivest]

How would you rate the top 40 women of the Open Era. I count players who had a significant part of their carers in the Open Era, and those I count their entire careers, including anything that happened before the Open Era in their careers. My order would be:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Chris Evert
3. Margaret Court
4. Martina Navratilova
5. Billie Jean King
6. Serena Williams
7. Monica Seles
8. Justine Henin
9. Maria Bueno
10. Venus Williams
11. Martina Hingis
12. Evonne Goolagong
13. Lindsay Davenport
14. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
15. Ann Jones
16. Hana Mandlikova
17. Tracy Austin
18. Virginia Wade
19. Nancy Richey
20. Lesley Turner
21. Mary Pierce
22. Amelie Mauresmo
23. Maria Sharapova
24. Gabriela Sabatini
25. Kim Clijsters
26. Jana Novotna
27. Jennifer Capriati
28. Conchita Martinez
29. Svetlana Kuznetsova
30. Helena Sukova
31. Ana Ivanovic
32. Pam Shriver
33. Elena Dementieva
34. Mary Joe Fernadez
35. Wendy Turnbull
36. Rosie Casals
37. Natalia Zvereva
38. Olga Morozova
39. Kerry Melville (Reid)
40. Dinara Safina

 

[drwood]

How would you rate the top 40 women of the Open Era. I count players who had a significant part of their carers in the Open Era, and those I count their entire careers, including anything that happened before the Open Era in their careers. My order would be:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Chris Evert
3. Margaret Court
4. Martina Navratilova
5. Billie Jean King
6. Serena Williams
7. Monica Seles
8. Justine Henin
9. Maria Bueno
10. Venus Williams
11. Martina Hingis
12. Evonne Goolagong
13. Lindsay Davenport
14. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
15. Ann Jones
16. Hana Mandlikova
17. Tracy Austin
18. Virginia Wade
19. Nancy Richey
20. Lesley Turner
21. Mary Pierce
22. Amelie Mauresmo
23. Maria Sharapova
24. Gabriela Sabatini
25. Kim Clijsters
26. Jana Novotna
27. Jennifer Capriati
28. Conchita Martinez
29. Svetlana Kuznetsova
30. Helena Sukova
31. Ana Ivanovic
32. Pam Shriver
33. Elena Dementieva
34. Mary Joe Fernadez
35. Wendy Turnbull
36. Rosie Casals
37. Natalia Zvereva
38. Olga Morozova
39. Kerry Melville (Reid)
40. Dinara Safina

Capriati is too low on this list...she has 3 majors and a gold medal -- definitely belongs higher than Sabatini, Mauresmo or Pierce

Navratilova belongs higher than Evert -- same number of majors and she won their H2H (and they both played each other in their primes)

 

[thalivest]

Capriati is too low on this list...she has 3 majors and a gold medal -- definitely belongs higher than Sabatini, Mauresmo or Pierce

Navratilova belongs higher than Evert -- same number of majors and she won their H2H (and they both played each other in their primes)

I put Capriati where I did since I believe she had a ridiculous amount of luck to win her 3 slams and I dont believe she is even close to the same level as other 3 slam winners, nor better than alot of the 2 and 1 slam winners. She only has 14 tournaments, and all of her prime years except 2001-early 2002 she was only around the 7th best player in the World at a given point in time. I dont really believe she is a better player than Sabatini, Mauresmo, Pierce, Clijsters, or Novotna, thus I dont feel comfortable ranking her above them.

I put Evert over Navratilova since I feel Evert's consistency and longevity far surpasses Martina's, plus her overall competition was much more than Martina's. The 70s were a much tougher decade of tennis than the 80s, particularly the 82-86 period Martina dominated. Martina was far more dominant at her peak than Evert at her peak, in fact that is the area many greats surpass Chris, but that is Martina's only real edge over Chris other than her doubles play IMO. Also had the slams been fully valued in the 70s Evert would have won several more slams than Martina, in fact she probably would have won more than Graf. People only seem to consider that Martina dominated Evert at her 5 year peak of 82-86, while that Evert was at the very top 1 or 2 players of the World from 1974 to 1986 isnt even really considered. I just dont agree with that and hence my ranking.

 

[BTURNER]

just singles/ Doubles+singles

1. Steffi Graf/ Navratilova
2. Margaret Court/ Court
3. Martina Navratilova / King
4. Chris Evert/ Graf
5. Billie Jean King / Evert
6. Serena Williams/ S Williams
7. Evonne Goolagong/ Hingis
8. Justine Henin/ Bueno
9. Maria Bueno/ V. Williams
10. Monica Seles/ Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
11. Venus Williams / Wade
12.Arantxa Sanchez Vicario/ Shriver
13. Martina Hingis/ CAsals
14. Hana Mandlikova/ Seles
15. Ann Jones/ Goolagong
16. Lindsay Davenport/ Mandlikova
17. Tracy Austin/ Novatna
18. Virginia Wade/ Sukova
19. Nancy Richey/ Ann Jones
20. Lesley Turner/ Gabriela Sabatini
21. Mary Pierce/ Tracy Austin
22. Amelie Mauresmo/ Wendy Turnbull
23. Maria Sharapova/ Natalia Zvereva
24. Gabriela Sabatini/ Amelie Mauresmo
25. Kim Clijsters/ Kim Clijsters
26. Jana Novotna/Kerry Melville (Reid)
27. Jennifer Capriati/Mary Joe Fernadez
28. Helena Sukova
29. Svetlana Kuznetsova
30. Conchita Martinez
31. Ana Ivanovic
32. Wendy Turnbull
33. Elena Dementieva
34. Mary Joe Fernadez
35. Pam Shriver
36. Rosie Casals
37. Natalia Zvereva
38. Olga Morozova
39. Kerry Melville (Reid)
40. Dinara Safina

 

[thalivest]

just singles/ Doubles+singles

1. Steffi Graf/ Navratilova
2. Margaret Court/ Court
3. Martina Navratilova / King
4. Chris Evert/ Graf
5. Billie Jean King / Evert
6. Serena Williams/ S Williams
7. Evonne Goolagong/ Hingis
8. Justine Henin/ Bueno
9. Maria Bueno/ V. Williams
10. Monica Seles/ Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
11. Venus Williams / Wade
12.Arantxa Sanchez Vicario/ Shriver
13. Martina Hingis/ CAsals
14. Hana Mandlikova/ Seles
15. Ann Jones/ Goolagong
16. Lindsay Davenport/ Mandlikova
17. Tracy Austin/ Novatna
18. Virginia Wade/ Sukova
19. Nancy Richey/ Ann Jones
20. Lesley Turner/ Gabriela Sabatini
21. Mary Pierce/ Tracy Austin
22. Amelie Mauresmo/ Wendy Turnbull
23. Maria Sharapova/ Natalia Zvereva
24. Gabriela Sabatini/ Amelie Mauresmo
25. Kim Clijsters/ Kim Clijsters
26. Jana Novotna/Kerry Melville (Reid)
27. Jennifer Capriati/Mary Joe Fernadez
28. Helena Sukova
29. Svetlana Kuznetsova
30. Conchita Martinez
31. Ana Ivanovic
32. Wendy Turnbull
33. Elena Dementieva
34. Mary Joe Fernadez
35. Pam Shriver
36. Rosie Casals
37. Natalia Zvereva
38. Olga Morozova
39. Kerry Melville (Reid)
40. Dinara Safina

Thanks for your input. You think Goolagong is superior to Bueno and Henin? I personally rate her behind them since her slam tally of 7 in singles is IMO inflated by the Australian Open status. She wasnt dominant at any of the other slams so I see no reason to assume she would have won 4 years in a row there with a full field. In that sense her 7 is clearly behind Henin and Bueno's 7 for me. She also didnt win any slam outside the Australian Open from 1971 to 1980, that is a long time. Henin was a constant major presence and winner from 2003-2007, and Bueno most of the 60s when she was healthy.

I guess we share the opinion Capriati even with her 3 slams is not stronger than alot of the 1 or 2 time slam winners.

 

[grafselesfan]

just singles/ Doubles+singles

1. Steffi Graf/ Navratilova
2. Margaret Court/ Court
3. Martina Navratilova / King
4. Chris Evert/ Graf
5. Billie Jean King / Evert
6. Serena Williams/ S Williams
7. Evonne Goolagong/ Hingis
8. Justine Henin/ Bueno
9. Maria Bueno/ V. Williams
10. Monica Seles/ Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
11. Venus Williams / Wade
12.Arantxa Sanchez Vicario/ Shriver
13. Martina Hingis/ CAsals
14. Hana Mandlikova/ Seles
15. Ann Jones/ Goolagong
16. Lindsay Davenport/ Mandlikova
17. Tracy Austin/ Novatna
18. Virginia Wade/ Sukova
19. Nancy Richey/ Ann Jones
20. Lesley Turner/ Gabriela Sabatini
21. Mary Pierce/ Tracy Austin
22. Amelie Mauresmo/ Wendy Turnbull
23. Maria Sharapova/ Natalia Zvereva
24. Gabriela Sabatini/ Amelie Mauresmo
25. Kim Clijsters/ Kim Clijsters
26. Jana Novotna/Kerry Melville (Reid)
27. Jennifer Capriati/Mary Joe Fernadez
28. Helena Sukova
29. Svetlana Kuznetsova
30. Conchita Martinez
31. Ana Ivanovic
32. Wendy Turnbull
33. Elena Dementieva
34. Mary Joe Fernadez
35. Pam Shriver
36. Rosie Casals
37. Natalia Zvereva
38. Olga Morozova
39. Kerry Melville (Reid)
40. Dinara Safina

Nice list but your rank of Ivanovic is very kind IMO.

 

[ClarkC]

Why does Safina show up at all? On lists posted by two different posters, even.

These lists always have some subtle bias towards recent athletes, and I guess Safina represents the recency bias on these lists. If she had played forty years ago and had exactly her current career accomplishments, people would not recognize her name.

 

[BTURNER]

"You think Goolagong is superior to Bueno and Henin? I personally rate her behind them since her slam tally of 7 in singles is IMO inflated by the Australian Open status"

I guess I did it because she won Wimbledon twice and Henin never did and Goolagong won on the slow red clay of Paris. Her win at the Italian proved it no fluke with two victories over Evert on clay shows her caliber on both the fastest and the slowest of surfaces. That gave her the edge.

 

[thalivest]

"You think Goolagong is superior to Bueno and Henin? I personally rate her behind them since her slam tally of 7 in singles is IMO inflated by the Australian Open status"

I guess I did it because she won Wimbledon twice and Henin never did and Goolagong won on the slow red clay of Paris. Her win at the Italian proved it no fluke with two victories over Evert on clay shows her caliber on both the fastest and the slowest of surfaces. That gave her the edge.

Fair enough. Goolagong's performances on clay are generally better and more consistent than Henin's on grass.

 

[papatenis]

tracy austin should be in the top 10, at the age of 16 she beat evert and navartilova in their prime. who knows how many more slams she could of won if she did not have career ending injuries.

 

[scootad.]

I agree that Capriati should be higher - above sabatini, pierce, novotna, mauresmo, etc. Slams still trump everything else. The top 4 could be shuffled in any order and reasonable arguments could be made either way.

The rest of the list seems pretty accurate.

 

[grafselesfan]

I agree that Capriati should be higher - above sabatini, pierce, novotna, mauresmo, etc. Slams still trump everything else. The top 4 could be shuffled in any order and reasonable arguments could be made either way.

The rest of the list seems pretty accurate.

The only slam Capriati really should have won was the 2001 Australian Open. Her other 2 slams were among the luckiest in history. Well even her 2001 Aussie was lucky in a way since Seles so uncharacteristically choked away a huge lead in the quarters, Davenport who owns Capriati played her worst slam semi or final ever in the semis for whatever reason, and Hingis was mentally zonked out by that point and even falling apart vs players who cant truly outplay like the Williams and Davenport could and whom she should beat like Capriati. Still with Serena, Venus, Capriati, Hingis, Davenport all making atleast the quarters it is hard to deny her that one. A bit lucky but she still earned that one. The other two though I laugh at.

2001 French Open- Seles and Davenport skipped the event, either would have taken the title otherwise. Seles around then held her own vs Capriati even on hard courts, so Jen would have no shot if they played on clay. Davenport owned and regularly overpowered Capriati in their meetings, and even though this is clay Davenport has a lopsided winning head to head with Capriati even on clay. Henin who would have beaten Capriati in the final choked a big lead vs Clijsters in the semis, and Clijsters who should have won the final choked it away a bunch of times for Capriati to win. Other possible title contenders this year like Venus, Mauresmo, and Dokic crashed out early.

2002 Australian Open- Now this one was truly the all time farce. Davenport and Serena who both would have 95% likely beaten her missed the event with injuries. Venus who Capriati has never beaten was eliminated from the tournament mainly by an injury. Monica after her big win over Venus, albeit an ailing Venus, ran into a neer perfect Hingis in the semis who made 7 unforced errors. Then in the final Hingis played a wretched match, making 50+ unforced errors, even more than Capriati herself made, and still choked away a slew of match points. Seles in her form that tournament would have beaten Capriati, and Hingis should have beaten her despite playing 20% the caliber of tennis she did in narrowly beating Seles in the semis. Clijsters choked away the first set of her semifinal with Capriati which would have given her a 2 set win. The flukiest slam win in history.

I feel most sorry for Davenport and Clijsters since Davenport should clearly have more slams than Capriati as she is by far a better player, and Clijsters should have as many or more also. Those 2 slams should have gone to 1 of those 2. I feel worse for Davenport as she was denied so many slams by the Williams at their peak and bad luck, and 2 that would have been hers she missed out on only to being injured and unable to play to win them. Clijsters choked both times so that is her own fault as usual.

 

[scootad.]

You can explain away the results all you want but the facts remain. Capriati won those slams.

One could even say that Capriati "should" have won more slams -- i.e. if she hadn't froze up in the '91 USO semis etc. she likely would have beaten Nav in the final to become yougest ever USO champion but I won't even go there because if you watch that match Seles played fearless once she was 2 points from the match.

The point is you can explain away the results all you want but they remain the same.

 

[grafselesfan]

You can explain away the results all you want but the facts remain. Capriati won those slams.

One could even say that Capriati "should" have won more slams -- i.e. if she hadn't froze up in the '91 USO semis etc. she likely would have beaten Nav in the final to become yougest ever USO champion but I won't even go there because if you watch that match Seles played fearless once she was 2 points from the match.

The point is you can explain away the results all you want but they remain the same.

There is much more to consider than just # of slams won. If we make the best ever rankings just by # of slams won then what is there to even discuss. Just look how many singles slams each player won, put them in order, and then that is it. If # of slams is the only factor to who rates higher than why does hardly anyone rate Court as #1 all time over Graf, Navratilova, and Evert? She won 24 slams after all, that is the most. Saying she won the Australian in depleted fields is no different than saying Capriati won 2 of her 3 slams with people who would have beaten her absent. Yet hardly anyone rates her over Graf, Navratilova, or even Evert it seems, despite that most slams won stat (both singles and singles/doubles combined).

Capriati has won only 14 singles tournaments. Clijsters has won 37 despite retiring at only 23, Mauresmo has won 25, Davenport who also has only 3 slams has won 55, Novotna has won 24, Sabatini has won 27. Only Pierce with 18 is she even close to. Capriati has only reached 3 total slam finals, Clijsters has been in 5 despite her very early retirement, Pierce has been in 6, Davenport has been in 7. Clijsters and Sabatini have won the WTA Championships twice and Sabatini has been in multiple other finals of it, Novotna has won it, Mauresmo has won it and been in multiple finals, Davenport has won it and been in many finals of it, Pierce has been in the finals twice. Capriati has never been in the finals. Then if we were to look at tier 1 titles I am sure Capriati would again be far behind.

Also her head to heads vs some of that group:

Sabatini vs Capriati- Sabatini leads 11-5
Novotna vs Capriati- Novotna leads 4-0
Davenport vs Capriati- Davenport leads 9-3
Mauresmo vs Capriati- Mauresmo leads 7-4
Clijsters vs Capriati- tied 3-3 (Clijsters won all 3 2003 meetings)

The only one of those she had a good head to head with is Pierce. Pierce makes ground back though with such performances as destroying a prime Graf in a grand slam semifinal, while Capriati is 0-10 in sets vs Graf in slam events including 3 in a row in 1993 where the now 17 year old early phenom Capriati can hardly be claimed to not yet be "prime". Pierce has put in certain performances people will talk about for years to come because of her level of tennis those days. Capriati has not ever done this, she has not ever played tennis matches that will be talked about years from now because of her unbelievably high level of play. The biggest thing any of her matches will be talked about years from now is her whole returning to become a belated champion after becoming a pothead, that sort of thing.

A greatest players list is not always the most accomplished but the best players, and as you can see here Capriati in most regards isnt even more accomplished (her only edge is her 1 or 2 more slams wins than some of these). She is one of the best examples you can find how there is more to consider in someones career than strictly # of slam wins.

 

[scootad.]

Point taken but if you are going to make amends for Clijsters "early retirement" how about the fact that Capriati missed several key years of her prime...she was out of the game from 1994-1998 dealing with personal issues, marijuana, shop lifting, etc. Who knows how many more slams she could have won in that interval had she been able to play.

Also there is something to be said for getting in the big stage and making it happen. Yes, Capriati only made 3 slam finals but she won every one of them. Not a single loss. That says something.

 

[suwanee4712]

"You think Goolagong is superior to Bueno and Henin? I personally rate her behind them since her slam tally of 7 in singles is IMO inflated by the Australian Open status"

I guess I did it because she won Wimbledon twice and Henin never did and Goolagong won on the slow red clay of Paris. Her win at the Italian proved it no fluke with two victories over Evert on clay shows her caliber on both the fastest and the slowest of surfaces. That gave her the edge.

I have a feeling that if the French had been more of a priority that Gooly might have surprised people with how well she would've done there, even against Evert. After all, she came pretty close to winning the 1975 US Open on clay against Chris. I know its not the same clay surface. But I think there's evidence to show that Evonne would've been a major threat in the mid and late 70's French championships.

On the flip side, perhaps she might not have won as many Aussie titles had those fields been stronger. But that's just speculation.

I would definitely rank Gooly above Henin. She had a lot more to deal with in the 2nd week of slams than I think Henin did.

 

[grafselesfan]

Point taken but if you are going to make amends for Clijsters "early retirement" how about the fact that Capriati missed several key years of her prime...she was out of the game from 1994-1998 dealing with personal issues, marijuana, shop lifting, etc. Who knows how many more slams she could have won in that interval had she been able to play.

Also there is something to be said for getting in the big stage and making it happen. Yes, Capriati only made 3 slam finals but she won every one of them. Not a single loss. That says something.

Fair enough. I shouldnt really factor in Clijsters's early retirement as that was her choice. I also think Clijsters was very unlucky to miss the 2004 French-2005 Australian Open period with injury as with her nemisises Henin and Williams all struggling with health or form she could have easily won 2 or 3 slams during that period. Of course I suppose you could make those sort of luck arguments for any player though, and Kim is Kim so the bigger the opportunity the bigger the choke probably anyway.

You are right Capriati's 3-0 slam finals record is impressive. I do have to give her that. I would be even more impressed if it were vs say Venus, Serena, Graf, Seles, or Henin in any of those finals but you can only play who is on the other side of the net I guess.

 

[suwanee4712]

tracy austin should be in the top 10, at the age of 16 she beat evert and navartilova in their prime. who knows how many more slams she could of won if she did not have career ending injuries.

Like Seles, it's hard to know where to place her. People underestimate Tracy for the same reason that 20 years removed Chris is underestimated for today. Her mental toughness and strength is why she was such a great champion. She was also very Seles-like in that way.

 

[grafselesfan]

Like Seles, it's hard to know where to place her. People underestimate Tracy for the same reason that 20 years removed Chris is underestimated for today. Her mental toughness and strength is why she was such a great champion. She was also very Seles-like in that way.

I dont think Seles is that hard to place. Nearly everyone has her in around the same spot, just behind King and Serena Williams, and just ahead of all the recent 7 slam winners like Goolagong, Henin, Bueno, and Venus.

 

[suwanee4712]

I dont think Seles is that hard to place. Nearly everyone has her in around the same spot, just behind King and Serena Williams, and just ahead of all the recent 7 slam winners like Goolagong, Henin, Bueno, and Venus.

You're probably right in that I overstated that. I do think Seles would've ended up being higher than what she is had the stabbing not occurred. I don't think that she would've dominated Steffi. But I do think each would've won their share of slams. Which would improve Seles' ranking on this list. I think she could've passed Serena and rivalled King in her slam count.

But I don't want to go too overboard with the speculation. After all, lots of players lost chances to be greater than they ultimately were through various reasons. It's just a part of the game where some are luckier than others.

 

[grafselesfan]

You're probably right in that I overstated that. I do think Seles would've ended up being higher than what she is had the stabbing not occurred. I don't think that she would've dominated Steffi. But I do think each would've won their share of slams. Which would improve Seles' ranking on this list. I think she could've passed Serena and rivalled King in her slam count.

But I don't want to go too overboard with the speculation. After all, lots of players lost chances to be greater than they ultimately were through various reasons. It's just a part of the game where some are luckier than others.

Oh I dont disagree with you at all there. I think Seles would have definitely gone on to a much greater career and ranked higher without the stabbing. It is impossible to even know just how high. As for Graf her status could be diminished or could be even further enhanced with an improved showing vs Seles due to the tougher competition, so it is hard to say for her as well. They are my two favorite players so it is a touchy subject for me but I am not going to disagree at all Seles would rank higher. Of course not just how she fared vs Graf but the new generation of players to emerge in the late 90s would have been critical to her career standing. When I said fairly easy to place I meant based on how things ended up, that seems to be the consensus rank of nearly all for her just as I described, with very few exceptions. As a Seles fan I get lambusted for going into the what ifs too much so I dont even bother much anymore.

Serena's career isnt over. She is bound to work her way up even higher by piling up the slam wins. Then again that is another case where my own words of it is not just slam wins to consider is appropriate. Serena's wild inconsistency, 5 year hole of winning only 2 slams vs a relatively unimposing field, her disregard for non slam events to the point of allowing slamless and even mediocre players to be ranked #1 over her even while dominating the slams, are all factors that mar her overall career IMO.

 

[suwanee4712]

Oh I dont disagree with you at all there. I think Seles would have definitely gone on to a much greater career and ranked higher without the stabbing. It is impossible to even know just how high. As for Graf her status could be diminished or could be even further enhanced with an improved showing vs Seles due to the tougher competition, so it is hard to say for her as well. They are my two favorite players so it is a touchy subject for me but I am not going to disagree at all Seles would rank higher. Of course not just how she fared vs Graf but the new generation of players to emerge in the late 90s would have been critical to her career standing. When I said fairly easy to place I meant based on how things ended up, that seems to be the consensus rank of nearly all for her just as I described, with very few exceptions. As a Seles fan I get lambusted for going into the what ifs too much so I dont even bother much anymore.

Serena's career isnt over. She is bound to work her way up even higher by piling up the slam wins. Then again that is another case where my own words of it is not just slam wins to consider is appropriate. Serena's wild inconsistency, 5 year hole of winning only 2 slams vs a relatively unimposing field, her disregard for non slam events to the point of allowing slamless and even mediocre players to be ranked #1 over her even while dominating the slams, are all factors that mar her overall career IMO.

It has always been my opinion that there were two victims in the Seles stabbing, with Steffi being the other victim. Obviously, I don't mean to equate the two situations. But 1) it hurt Steffi personally, 2) it robbed her of her great rival that would've pushed them both to greater heights, and 3) people always use Seles' absence against Steffi's record, which isn't fair.

Regardless to whatever happened and how it happened, Steffi still showed up and showed up and displayed her championship mettle. And I am not one of those that think that Seles would've dominated Steffi.

I was a bigger fan of Steffi than Monica. I liked Steffi's game much better. Even though I have now come to appreciate just how tough and tenacious Monica was for a time.

But I can't wait to read Monica's new book. And I appreciated Monica as a person after she came back. From what I've read, she turned into a very gracious woman.

 

[grafselesfan]

It has always been my opinion that there were two victims in the Seles stabbing, with Steffi being the other victim. Obviously, I don't mean to equate the two situations. But 1) it hurt Steffi personally, 2) it robbed her of her great rival that would've pushed them both to greater heights, and 3) people always use Seles' absence against Steffi's record, which isn't fair.

Regardless to whatever happened and how it happened, Steffi still showed up and showed up and displayed her championship mettle. And I am not one of those that think that Seles would've dominated Steffi.

I was a bigger fan of Steffi than Monica. I liked Steffi's game much better. Even though I have now come to appreciate just how tough and tenacious Monica was for a time.

But I can't wait to read Monica's new book. And I appreciated Monica as a person after she came back. From what I've read, she turned into a very gracious woman.

Monica is an amazing human being. I cant believe how much perspective she has on tennis and life after all that has happened to her. Many people would just be completely jaded and bitter forever thinking that the gods are against them almost. She still manages to find perspective and move on with her life in a positive manner.

Of course the premature death or atleast curtailing of the Graf-Seles rivalry was a huge blow to the womens game. Sanchez Vicario filled in admirably and you know that I have a higher opinion of her as a player than perhaps you do, but all the same it felt more like a heavyweight fighting a tenacious heavy middleweight with alot of heart. It never really felt like two heavyweights going at it the way Graf vs Seles did or Navratilova vs Evert or even Williams vs Williams or Henin. You admired Sanchez for showing so much heart and effort to somehow being so competitive with so far a more skilled and dominating player than herself more than anything.

 

[suwanee4712]

Monica is an amazing human being. I cant believe how much perspective she has on tennis and life after all that has happened to her. Many people would just be completely jaded and bitter forever thinking that the gods are against them almost. She still manages to find perspective and move on with her life in a positive manner.

Of course the premature death or atleast curtailing of the Graf-Seles rivalry was a huge blow to the womens game. Sanchez Vicario filled in admirably and you know that I have a higher opinion of her as a player than perhaps you do, but all the same it felt more like a heavyweight fighting a tenacious heavy middleweight with alot of heart. It never really felt like two heavyweights going at it the way Graf vs Seles did or Navratilova vs Evert or even Williams vs Williams or Henin. You admired Sanchez for showing so much heart and effort to somehow being so competitive with so far a more skilled and dominating player than herself more than anything.

I hate it when we get to arguing and then we're throwing particular players under the bus. I 've done that with Sanchez sometimes. I do think she was a huge beneficiary to what happened. But like Steffi, she did her job regardless. And she did it to the best of her abilities. Not many players got more out of their game than Sanchez did.

So I do respect her. Even if it is my opinion that she never would've reached #2 under any other scenerio, or have won more than the 1989 French. But then again, if I was Sanchez, I wouldn't give a hoot about what someone who never played pro tennis like me thought.

 

[anointedone]

So I do respect her. Even if it is my opinion that she never would've reached #2 under any other scenerio, or have won more than the 1989 French.

Well she did pass Graf in the rankings for brief periods in early 1995 so wouldnt that make it certain she reached atleast #2 at one point even if she never passed Monica in the rankings?

 

[Lionheart392]

Although Sanchez Vicario isn't often thought of as a former #1, she deserved it. Surely she was the best player in 1994 (even though she only held the ranking briefly in 1995).

 

[anointedone]

Sanchez Vicario was the true #1 of 1994, not Steffi Graf.

2 slams and 3 slam finals > 1 slam and 2 slam finals

Plus she led Graf 3-2 head to head for the year. Another example of the flawed ranking system IMO, but the best player in the World for 1994 was not Steffi Graf but Sanchez Vicario IMO based on results.

 

[boredone3456]

How would you rate the top 40 women of the Open Era. I count players who had a significant part of their carers in the Open Era, and those I count their entire careers, including anything that happened before the Open Era in their careers. My order would be:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Chris Evert
3. Margaret Court
4. Martina Navratilova
5. Billie Jean King
6. Serena Williams
7. Monica Seles
8. Justine Henin
9. Maria Bueno
10. Venus Williams
11. Martina Hingis
12. Evonne Goolagong
13. Lindsay Davenport
14. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
15. Ann Jones
16. Hana Mandlikova
17. Tracy Austin
18. Virginia Wade
19. Nancy Richey
20. Lesley Turner
21. Mary Pierce
22. Amelie Mauresmo
23. Maria Sharapova
24. Gabriela Sabatini
25. Kim Clijsters
26. Jana Novotna
27. Jennifer Capriati
28. Conchita Martinez
29. Svetlana Kuznetsova
30. Helena Sukova
31. Ana Ivanovic
32. Pam Shriver
33. Elena Dementieva
34. Mary Joe Fernadez
35. Wendy Turnbull
36. Rosie Casals
37. Natalia Zvereva
38. Olga Morozova
39. Kerry Melville (Reid)
40. Dinara Safina

This list on the whole is pretty good. I agree Jennifer Capriati needs to be lowered because of the incredible luck in her slams...the fact that she has the same number as Davenport is borderline disturbing since Davenport was a far superior player.

I would make however a few changes, firstly I'd swap Kuznetsova and Martinez...conchita got incredibly lucky to win Wimbledon in 1994 and if history were redone I doubt she'd win it. Ivanovic...even though she has a slam...does not, in my opinion belong higher than Shriver, Fernandez, Casals or really even Dementieva. They were all stronger than she was despite not getting a slam title. I'd also swap Pierce and Mauresmo, Goolagong and Hingis, and maybe Jones and Mandlikova.

 

[thalivest]

This list on the whole is pretty good. I agree Jennifer Capriati needs to be lowered because of the incredible luck in her slams...the fact that she has the same number as Davenport is borderline disturbing since Davenport was a far superior player.

I would make however a few changes, firstly I'd swap Kuznetsova and Martinez...conchita got incredibly lucky to win Wimbledon in 1994 and if history were redone I doubt she'd win it. Ivanovic...even though she has a slam...does not, in my opinion belong higher than Shriver, Fernandez, Casals or really even Dementieva. They were all stronger than she was despite not getting a slam title. I'd also swap Pierce and Mauresmo, Goolagong and Hingis, and maybe Jones and Mandlikova.

All good points and suggestions. I probably did quite overrank Ivanovic. I sort of bit my tongue and credited her making 3 slam finals in the same span of just 54 weeks, but still with the horrible womens field today and what a blip that so far has turned out to be I probably did not have to credit her so much. I really dont believe she is better than those you mentioned so I should put her down quite a bit more if on the list at all.

Goolagong vs Hingis? Yeah I guess there are good reasons to have Evonne higher but even though it was vs a weak field Hingis was a dominant player for awhile which Evonne never was. If the Aussie Open was a normal event then and Goolagong still with the home court won say 2 times instead of 4 she would have 5 like Hingis but that is speculative. Hingis really blew it losing those 01 and 02 AO finals to Capriati, especialy the 02 debacle. Her status would have been elevated if she won a 6th or even 7th major, and didnt end her career going so long without winning one once the power hitters got more established. Winning 1 or both of those would have been huge for her.

I rated Mauresmo just behind initialy since Pierce has double the slam finals and primed at a more competitive time for womens tennis than Mauresmo. Then again regardless the competition Mauresmo was the true #1 of 2006 and the semi believable computer #1 for awhile late in 2004, which Pierce never managed , and actually the field Mauresmo primed in the early to mid 2000s in was pretty good and tough as well. Mauresmo was much more consistent in her career too.

I had Jones over Hana part since the 80 AO was a bit of a joke with both Evert and Austin missing (MN was not in good form around then at all) but then again in the form she was in late 80-81 she might have taken it anyway. Of course that was 1 of her 4 slams and Jones won 3. Hana did have Chris and Martina to deal with (and even Austin for awhile too) but Ann had Court, Bueno, Billie Jean, but more other really good players behind the big 2 or 3 than the 80s IMO with Richey, Turner, Wade also. That plus I feel Jones should be multiple places over Wade as while both are British with 3 slams I feel Jones is clearly the better player of the two still. Jones best surface is clay and Wade's is grass yet the way Jones won Wimbledon in 69 was still overall more impressive than Wade in 77.

 

[boredone3456]

All good points and suggestions. I probably did quite overrank Ivanovic. I sort of bit my tongue and credited her making 3 slam finals in the same span of just 54 weeks, but still with the horrible womens field today and what a blip that so far has turned out to be I probably did not have to credit her so much. I really dont believe she is better than those you mentioned so I should put her down quite a bit more if on the list at all.

Goolagong vs Hingis? Yeah I guess there are good reasons to have Evonne higher but even though it was vs a weak field Hingis was a dominant player for awhile which Evonne never was. If the Aussie Open was a normal event then and Goolagong still with the home court won say 2 times instead of 4 she would have 5 like Hingis but that is speculative. Hingis really blew it losing those 01 and 02 AO finals to Capriati, especialy the 02 debacle. Her status would have been elevated if she won a 6th or even 7th major, and didnt end her career going so long without winning one once the power hitters got more established. Winning 1 or both of those would have been huge for her.

I rated Mauresmo just behind initialy since Pierce has double the slam finals and primed at a more competitive time for womens tennis than Mauresmo. Then again regardless the competition Mauresmo was the true #1 of 2006 and the semi believable computer #1 for awhile late in 2004, which Pierce never managed , and actually the field Mauresmo primed in the early to mid 2000s in was pretty good and tough as well. Mauresmo was much more consistent in her career too.

I had Jones over Hana part since the 80 AO was a bit of a joke with both Evert and Austin missing (MN was not in good form around then at all) but then again in the form she was in late 80-81 she might have taken it anyway. Of course that was 1 of her 4 slams and Jones won 3. Hana did have Chris and Martina to deal with (and even Austin for awhile too) but Ann had Court, Bueno, Billie Jean, but more other really good players behind the big 2 or 3 than the 80s IMO with Richey, Turner, Wade also. That plus I feel Jones should be multiple places over Wade as while both are British with 3 slams I feel Jones is clearly the better player of the two still. Jones best surface is clay and Wade's is grass yet the way Jones won Wimbledon in 69 was still overall more impressive than Wade in 77.

All good points. For Goolagong its the depth of the competition she faced, especially in Evert. Hingis had her best years during the worst 2 years of the 90's...so I guess I detract from her dominance for that reason, espiecally since when things started to get better..Hingis sort of just stayed stuck. Pierce and Mauresmo..with them I sort of analyze peak play and at her best Pierce was in my opinion better than Mauresmo at hers. Also..i really only give Mauresmo 1.5 slams, her Aussie, though a trophy...saw 3 of her opponents retire and that detracts from it a bit in my opinion, that along with her dismal 2007 slam defenses, and Pierce's having more slam finals...gives an edge to Pierce...but thats just my opnion. With Hana and ann Jones..its really up in the air I guess. Hana without Evert and Martina would have won more...but she did also benefit from the absense of austin..so it can be seen to balance out I guess. I guess I give her credit for her slam victories of Evert and Navratilova...but your right in the end its really not much of a difference between them.

 

[thalivest]

All good points. For Goolagong its the depth of the competition she faced, especially in Evert. Hingis had her best years during the worst 2 years of the 90's...so I guess I detract from her dominance for that reason, espiecally since when things started to get better..Hingis sort of just stayed stuck. Pierce and Mauresmo..with them I sort of analyze peak play and at her best Pierce was in my opinion better than Mauresmo at hers. Also..i really only give Mauresmo 1.5 slams, her Aussie, though a trophy...saw 3 of her opponents retire and that detracts from it a bit in my opinion, that along with her dismal 2007 slam defenses, and Pierce's having more slam finals...gives an edge to Pierce...but thats just my opnion. With Hana and ann Jones..its really up in the air I guess. Hana without Evert and Martina would have won more...but she did also benefit from the absense of austin..so it can be seen to balance out I guess. I guess I give her credit for her slam victories of Evert and Navratilova...but your right in the end its really not much of a difference between them.

Yeah you are right Goolagong had much tougher competition than Hingis. Even in a weak field Goolagong doesnt have the consistency to dominate the way Hingis did at one point, but in a field like Goolagong faced Hingis might have been buried and won no slams (or maybe a couple of the Aussies from 74-77 in the not full fields Goolagong faced). Who knows.

I am not sure if you notice but I did rate Pierce over Mauresmo by 1 spot in my list so if that is how you would have it we were in agreement really. I dont count Mauresmo's Aussie as half a slam personally. Yes she had 3 retirements as you said, but the first person to retire was someone who didnt have a hope. Henin's retirement in the final was a farce, Mauresmo was just outplaying her that day. I dont believe for a second she was hurt or sick. Clijsters retirement was legitimate but she was already down a break in the 3rd set when the injury abruptly happened due to a slip and in hindsight she didnt have the hunger to push through and win any more majors after her overdue slam win at the 05 U.S Open.

Hana is a great player who even with her massive consistency problems would have won more slams with even 1 of Martina or Chris gone. However I took into account her 1980 Aussie was won neither Evert or Austin there. A slumping Martina was there but Evert and Austin were clearly the 2 best players at that point in time, and the 2 main ones for Hana to have beaten, and Hana didnt even end up playing Martina there anyway. Her 1987 Aussie was won with neither Graf or Evert there, although she did beat Martina in the final. Even her 1981 French while she beat Chris, Tracy wasnt there. So her 1985 U.S Open was the only one without a major absence of someone. Her 87 Aussie and 81 French she still had a huge win to win, and the 87 Aussie imparticular I am not sure of her winning with Chris and Steffi there also. She still won 4 majors during the Chris-Martina era and deserved to of course but comparing her to Jones those were some things I considered. In fairness to her I am not sure she benefited much from the Tracy absense. Regardless where Tracy was ranked the worst Hana would have been is #4 which would mean she was still regularly in the top 4 and seeded to keep making semis. Hana was almost always over Shriver and the others in the rankings unless she was in a real slump, this wouldnt have changed. Also an event like the 85 U.S Open no way I see Austin having beaten her there in the form she was in. She had already won 2 of her other 4 slams before Austin's career was all but finished with injuries too. Not sure Tracy stops Hana from reaching say the finals of Wimbledon. So I am not sure Tracy changed much, even if in the best case scenario for Tracy she went on to win win multiple more U.S, French, and Australian Opens (not saying she would have but even in that case).

Jones would have won many more majors without Court and King too. How many times did she lost to 1 of those 2 in the semis or finals of a slam, just like Hana did to Martina and Chris. Like I mentioned Bueno, Richey, Turner, and Wade were all around too. Overall I think the 60s were deeper than Hana's era after the first 2 or 3. She also surprisingly stopped playing slams and faded out of tennis after beating Court in King back to back to win Wimbledon 69 in perhaps her most impressive performance ever. She was 31 years old but arguably playing her best tennis ever, she might have won another 1 or 2 slams had she continued playing the big events a bit longer, of course like Henin that was he choice. Like I said her best surface is clearly clay, so to win Wimbledon with such back to back major wins was a huge achievement for her IMO.

I definitely understand your rating Hana over Jones though.