but someone did point out not long ago that Court was a fitness buff as well...weightlifing and such. Can't say I've seen much of her, but from what I have, she was pretty imposing. The '70W final was a dandy. MN really did have a big impression on the game when she took up her fitness regimen...Lendl did something similar as his diet was awful and he was running out of steam down the stretch vs. guys like Connors. I was kind of shocked by Evert, as I did not expect it, but she became a very different player in '84-'86 and it showed in her results.
Top 5 in Open Era by surface
- Thread starter insideoutforehanders
- Start date
Margaret was busy watching her male compatriates of the 60's dominate tennis in part because of Harry Hopman's training regime. She learned to lift weights, run the track etc. There is little doubt who was the strongest fittest woman player out there, before Martina in the 1980's.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Your point re Evert 84-86 is interesting. I've always felt that this compares with the Serena Williams/Maria Sharapova rivalry: Evert knew she had to make changes both physically and tactically to challenge the then dominant Navratilova. Sharapova never did versus Williams.
Re Margaret Court, I have a vague memory of reading that she could have been an Olympic athlete such was her speed. 400m I think. I'd check, but can't bring myself to put her name in a search engine knowing what will mostly come up.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I don't know if there are any changes Sharapova could have made that would have helped against Serena. Whenever they faced off, Serena just played as if she HAD to obliterate Maria. I don't think Serena ever forgave Maria, or maybe even herself, for the 2 loses to Sharapova in 2004. Serena after 2005 played like she was so angry at Maria that Maria may as well have just stayed home. Sharapova to her credit did improve in some areas. It got to a point where when they played I asked myself how many games Serena might let Maria win this time before destroying her.
Evert/Navratilova never had that dynamic. They didn't want to lose to each other, but it never felt bitterly personal. Serena I felt had a bit of a personal grudge against Maria (which I could get, Maria didn't exactly shy away from shading Serena whenever she could).
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I get that, but Sharapova never really made changes to her game or her tactics to counter Williams ie didn't at least attempt drops or slice to disrupt the rhythm of Williams. She didn't try to take the net. It was, generally, more of the same.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
True. I don't think Sharapova could have ever learned to hit a solid drop shot to be fair, she didn't exactly have the touch for it. She could have come to net more, especially when she did work on her movement over time. Movement is probably the one area where she improved, and with her reach she could have at least applied SOME pressure at the net. Serena never had much of a lob shot that I recall, although she could pass solidly. But Sharapova had enough speed she could have made a show at net...but again...her hands. I don't recall enough of her net play to speak to her ability to volley.
One thing I wish Sharapova had done was eliminate that left handed forehand on the run she tried all to often in my opinion. I get she's naturally left handed, but seemingly whenever I saw her do that against someone like Serena, it took away time from her getting to the next shot and blew up in her face. Her backhand wasn't horrible. I think Serena was so in her head at one point she really had no answers except hit as hard as she could and shriek.
It always did feel like a grudge match between Serena and Sharapova.....I'm not sure what else Maria could have done to avoid obliteration...some of them were painful to watch. And, it's not like Maria was some sort of hacker...she was world class. I did think she needed to take to the net more, if only to break up Serena's patterns a bit. She would just sit back and take a wallopping.
When MN was with Nancy Lieberman, I think that's when the faux animosity was generated...mainly from MN's side. But that faded over time.....these ladies were competitive, but there was no hatred there. Shoot, they played dubs together early on.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Exactly.
My point was that Evert took a beating from Navratilova for close to two years, and could have left the game with a great record but eventually faced the challenge, lifting weights, beefing up her serve, changing racquet, coming to net of her volition when creating the opportunity etc
And she retired having, more or less, equal footing with Navratilova. Heck, she even reclaimed the no.1 spot.
I do think she held on to the wooden racquet for far too long. The last top player, man or woman, to do so.
Re her friendship with Navratilova, definitely some ups and downs, but look at them now. A genuine sincere friendship they're still making documentaries about.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Evert definitely should have ditched the wooden racquet sooner. I'm not 100% sure why she waited so long, and then when she switched it was a longer adjustment period than I would have expected. If not for that delayed switch, and her losing like a dozen matches possibly because of it, she might have been able to maintain the H2H lead over Martina.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Serena got extra mad and fueled for Sharapova, and because of that she did everything sharper, but especialy hit the ball consistently WAY harder than normal. Which is scary for said hypothetical opponent, in this case Maria, considering Serena is already one of the hardest hitters ever. Think of it Sharapova, another of the biggest hitters in history, is the same one who went 5-1 (4-1 in their mutual primes) with Davenport, Lindsay arguably the hardest hitter ever, by beating Lindsay at her own game of mostly nothing but hard baseline hitting and serving battles, plus of course being mentally tougher and winning the clutch points in every close match (4 of their 6 matches, with each having one blow out) too. So for Serena to overpower Maria that badly, and not even have to use much of her variety and considerably better overall game, angles, or movement much, she had to be hitting and powering the ball even well above her own norm, and it was pure hatred that caused her to do that. Add to that her considerably better movement, net game, all around serve quality, better feel, more variety, and better point construction to boot, and it is easy to see why Maria could never make a dent in her again.
And people may say i am exagerrating with the hatred part. If it is not hatred it was strong dislike and ultra determination. All stemming from not only the 2004 defeats, but I think worst of all Maria and her dad's classless behavior at the end of the 2004 YEC final when Serena was injured. Nothing wrong with celebrating a win, but the way it was done. Add to that Serena feeling inner rage that Maria was multiplying her many times over in endorsements and attention, and some lingering feelings it was partly racialy moviated (I don't think it was that, it was mainly Maria just being seen as much sexier/hotter, and the younger, newer commodity) and things like Dmitrov going from Serena to Maria, and a lot of other things just add up to strong resentment of Serena towards Maria, that fueled her performance, particularly the huge rachet up in power through sheer disgust and fury, when they met.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Agree 100%. And it must have hurt that Sharapova attracted a similar level of attention as Kournikova but with the added bonus of titles. And whilst they both threw shade each other's way, I always felt this was one area Sharapova had the upper hand - a dry sense of humour and quick wit.
All of that said, and maybe the results would have been similar but she rarely went from Plan A, which unfortunately suited Williams.
Re Davenport, similar games but Sharapova had far superior movement and got her wins early. Sharapova is to be lauded that she rarely, if ever, gave up. She wasn't brittle like those with a similar game ie Muguruza.
Yes Sharapova loudly celebrating UEs by a clearly injured Serena during the 3rd set of the 2004 YEC final (her abdominal injury meant that it was painful for her just to serve), her celebration alongside her father after the win, and then to compound things not even mentioning Serena once during her victory speech, undoubtedly enraged Serena. That was IMO more significant for their future matches and h2h than their Wimbledon final earlier in the year.
Sharapova was ultimately up against an opponent with more power, control and variety and better athleticism than her, plus the greatest serve in the history of women's tennis which was more than enough to overcome her huge wingspan on return etc. But the fact that after that 2004 YEC final Serena was absolutely hell-bent on beating and punishing her every-time they played each other, clearly compounded things.
Serena completely dominating Sharapova in all big matches from then on wasn't a surprise to me. However I was still surprised that Sharapova couldn't scrape one single win in one of their smaller matches in Stanford, Doha, Brisbane, even somewhere like Madrid etc. One of their most hilarious matches was their 2008 Charleston QF. At that stage, Serena's motivation at tournaments outside the majors, YEC, Olympics and Miami was probably at an all-time low during her career, at least until the post-COVID period. And against most other opponents, she wouldn't have cared that much about a Charleston QF at that stage in her career. But against Sharapova she was incredibly pumped up, and loudly celebrated winning important points.
During one of their matches, I think maybe Doha 2013, Serena was struggling with an illness but still had enough to beat Sharapova in straight sets.
Sharapova was ultimately up against an opponent with more power, control and variety and better athleticism than her, plus the greatest serve in the history of women's tennis which was more than enough to overcome her huge wingspan on return etc. But the fact that after that 2004 YEC final Serena was absolutely hell-bent on beating and punishing her every-time they played each other, clearly compounded things.
Serena completely dominating Sharapova in all big matches from then on wasn't a surprise to me. However I was still surprised that Sharapova couldn't scrape one single win in one of their smaller matches in Stanford, Doha, Brisbane, even somewhere like Madrid etc. One of their most hilarious matches was their 2008 Charleston QF. At that stage, Serena's motivation at tournaments outside the majors, YEC, Olympics and Miami was probably at an all-time low during her career, at least until the post-COVID period. And against most other opponents, she wouldn't have cared that much about a Charleston QF at that stage in her career. But against Sharapova she was incredibly pumped up, and loudly celebrated winning important points.
During one of their matches, I think maybe Doha 2013, Serena was struggling with an illness but still had enough to beat Sharapova in straight sets.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
There is a reasonable possibility that Sharapova might have beaten Williams at the French the year the latter pulled out before their match. We'll never know.
I don't think she waited THAT long really....it was 1984 when she made the shift to the Pro-Staff, which had been under development as the new frame for her and Connors. She stuck w/it, while he ditched it all too quickly.
I noticed that Evert got no votes for her hard-court prowess. Not sure who I would kick off for her myself, but Evert's excellent hard court record is mostly ignored or misunderstood. Dman did a great in-depth dive on the topic which I have never seen done elsewhere and its well worth a read. https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...eer-hard-court-record-aint-too-shabby.576392/
He divides her record into three parts.
1. Nov. 1973-Nov 1982 (the year she won her last US Open at Flushing) during which she had a 129-5 (96.3%) record and won 24 titles.
2. Jan 1983-Oct 1986 (the rest of her prime years) 83-8 (91.2%) record, and won 8 titles.
3. Jan 1987- Nov 1989 (the declining years) 71-16 (81.6%) record and won only 2 titles. [Here I found an error because Dman only counted the '88 slims of Los Angeles, but he did not notice that she won the Slims of New Orleans in October of '88 as well after the Olympic Games] I don't know if he included those matches she won in New Orleans in the 71-16 and the resulting 81.6% figure or not.
That paltry showing in stage three is interesting because it's a precipitous decline. I looked for patterns.
1. Hotpodge of upsets, with Shriver, McNeil, Garrison, Gompert etc. Her record looks more like her carpet play than her clay play. Now she plays and beats Martina both times in straight sets (yeah!) but she loses to Sabatini 3-1.(Boo!)
2. Here's the most significant. This is the relevant slice of the Evert - Graf head to head during this time.
1987 Lipton/Key Biscayne, FL F L 6-1, 6-2
1987 Federation Cup F L 6-2, 6-1
1987 Manhattan Beach, CA F L 6-3, 6-4
1988 Australian Open F L 6-1, 7-6
1988 Lipton/Key Biscayne, FL F L 6-4, 6-4
1989 Boca Raton, FL F L 4-6, 6-2, 6-3
1989 Wimbledon SF L 6-2, 6-1
6 consecutive losses on hard courts. Its almost the entire rivalry, once Graf takes her first win in Hilton head.
He divides her record into three parts.
1. Nov. 1973-Nov 1982 (the year she won her last US Open at Flushing) during which she had a 129-5 (96.3%) record and won 24 titles.
2. Jan 1983-Oct 1986 (the rest of her prime years) 83-8 (91.2%) record, and won 8 titles.
3. Jan 1987- Nov 1989 (the declining years) 71-16 (81.6%) record and won only 2 titles. [Here I found an error because Dman only counted the '88 slims of Los Angeles, but he did not notice that she won the Slims of New Orleans in October of '88 as well after the Olympic Games] I don't know if he included those matches she won in New Orleans in the 71-16 and the resulting 81.6% figure or not.
That paltry showing in stage three is interesting because it's a precipitous decline. I looked for patterns.
1. Hotpodge of upsets, with Shriver, McNeil, Garrison, Gompert etc. Her record looks more like her carpet play than her clay play. Now she plays and beats Martina both times in straight sets (yeah!) but she loses to Sabatini 3-1.(Boo!)
2. Here's the most significant. This is the relevant slice of the Evert - Graf head to head during this time.
1987 Lipton/Key Biscayne, FL F L 6-1, 6-2
1987 Federation Cup F L 6-2, 6-1
1987 Manhattan Beach, CA F L 6-3, 6-4
1988 Australian Open F L 6-1, 7-6
1988 Lipton/Key Biscayne, FL F L 6-4, 6-4
1989 Boca Raton, FL F L 4-6, 6-2, 6-3
1989 Wimbledon SF L 6-2, 6-1
6 consecutive losses on hard courts. Its almost the entire rivalry, once Graf takes her first win in Hilton head.
Last edited:
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Add to all that Sharapova's own serve went into massive decline post 2006 due to constant shoulder problems which began early 2007 and were off and on the remainder of her career (where almost all her post 2004 matches with Maria took place, IIRC there was only one in 2005 Maria lost after having 2 match points, and that is it), which meant the gap in serving was a ton larger than those early meetings, making Maria's situation even worse still.
Even in that 3rd phase, Evert was no slouch. But I think Steffi's rise somewhat demoralized her. I recall her saying about the '87 FO semi, a dismal showing vs. MN, that she wasn't motivated to win as Steffi would be in the final. Unlike her, really, but I think she was about ready to hang it up. Nothing left to prove after her mid '80's resurgence, regaining #1. NO ONE expected that to ever happen. She was being written off vs. MN. '88 AO was really a late career highlight...she played a killer SF vs. MN ("poker faced assasin" I believe was MN's comment) and if not for a slow start in the final, she might've pulled it out.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Graf was so confident in 87-89. Her decline in 90-91 came at the absolute worst time for her though, as it coincided with Seles's rise beginning. Seles took full advantage of Graf's own slump and decline in form to gain even further in confidence. And it gave her enough confidence and momentum even when Graf began to regain form in 92 and early 93, she still had a hard time beating Seles, apart from Graf. Had the stabbing not occured Graf would have probably had to hope for a similar slump of form for Seles, and have it coincide with some of her own best form, to regain the momentum and psychological edge she had lost with the extremely bad timing of her first big slump.
Agreed.
And also on a less scale compared to the shoulder injuries and decline of her serve, I think that her final growth spurt (in late 2005?) did her no favours, at least in this match-up (and probably overall at Wimbledon), as it caused her mobility to decline.
For example it was clear to me that her movement, while clearly not a par with that of the likes of Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo etc. was noticeably better at Wimbledon in 2004 than at Wimbledon in 2006 for example. At Wimbledon in 2004, her movement was pretty good for her height.
And there was a decent chunk of time, for example in 2012-2013 when they played each other 7 times, when Serena had both the best serve and the best return on the WTA tour bar none (I'm trying to think of whether there are any other examples of any individual player having both the best serve and return around at the same time). Clearly that was most evident in the 2012 Olympic final.
Yes that was Serena's third tournament back after her post-pregnancy return, and she was short on matches. Clearly her aim at that stage was to get as many matches under her belt ahead of Wimbledon, which she'd have a far more realistic chance of winning.
I do think that Serena for a long time was absolutely to determined to make sure that she never lost to Sharapova ever again, and so if she was struggling with an injury and also lacking match practice in general, she wouldn't want put her long winning streak against an opponent that she despised under serious jeopardy.
She played a doubles match with Venus the day before her withdrawal, during which they were bagelled in the 3rd set with her struggling to serve (the speed of her serves sharply declined in that 3rd set), hit smashes and even just move, so I didn't buy the conspiracy theories at the time, that she was pretending to be injured !
I'm kind of curious about what people think about Connors vs. Lendl on hard courts. Obviously, Lendl has the lead in Majors won on the surface -- 5 vs. 3 -- but, OTOH, Connors didn't get to play the U.S. Open on hard courts until 1978 and didn't have the chances to win the AO on Rebound Ace, like Lendl did.
Are the 1982 and 1983 U.S. Open finals dispositive here, with 30ish year old Connors twice taking down a version of Lendl who was just shy of hitting his stride? Or do Lendl's overall numbers give him the edge?
Are the 1982 and 1983 U.S. Open finals dispositive here, with 30ish year old Connors twice taking down a version of Lendl who was just shy of hitting his stride? Or do Lendl's overall numbers give him the edge?
insideoutforehanders
Professional
I have Connors clearly ahead on hard courts. Had the US Open been on hard courts 74-77 he has 7 US Opens on hard courts to Lendl's 3.
IMO Connors had an 11 year prime from 1974-1984 (so an impressively long stretch). There were only 7 hard court majors available to him during those 11 years, the US Open from 1978-1984, and he had won 3 titles and was a semi-finalist on the other 4 occasions (twice losing titanic 5 setters against Mac).
I would personally struggle to rank Connors behind either Lendl or Agassi for that matter on hard courts, and again tend to think that had all 3 had a similar number of hard court majors and big hard court events available to them, he’d have a strong chance of coming out on top title-wise. He still won more USO titles on hard courts than Agassi did during his career, despite the tournament not being held on hard courts for 4 years of his prime, including 2 years when he was clearly the best in the world (1974 and 1976), and the same number as Lendl.
All 3 players had some fortune in hard court majors, with Connors clearly benefitting from Borg’s thumb injury during the 1978 USO final (basically a walkover), Lendl benefitting from Edberg’s abdominal muscle injury during the 1990 AO final (and Edberg still served for a 2 sets to love lead), and Agassi benefitting from Sampras’s injuries to win his 1994 and 1999 USO titles (especially in 1999 with Sampras absent after straight setting him 3 times during the summer).
I would personally struggle to rank Connors behind either Lendl or Agassi for that matter on hard courts, and again tend to think that had all 3 had a similar number of hard court majors and big hard court events available to them, he’d have a strong chance of coming out on top title-wise. He still won more USO titles on hard courts than Agassi did during his career, despite the tournament not being held on hard courts for 4 years of his prime, including 2 years when he was clearly the best in the world (1974 and 1976), and the same number as Lendl.
All 3 players had some fortune in hard court majors, with Connors clearly benefitting from Borg’s thumb injury during the 1978 USO final (basically a walkover), Lendl benefitting from Edberg’s abdominal muscle injury during the 1990 AO final (and Edberg still served for a 2 sets to love lead), and Agassi benefitting from Sampras’s injuries to win his 1994 and 1999 USO titles (especially in 1999 with Sampras absent after straight setting him 3 times during the summer).
Last edited:
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Hall of Fame
Depends if we are rating primes peaks or just achievements I guess.
While say Djoker had a better grass resume than Nadal. Nadal at his best on grass was much better than djokovic. Sampras at his best was a better grass court player than Federer who had more Wimbledons. Yada Yada
While say Djoker had a better grass resume than Nadal. Nadal at his best on grass was much better than djokovic. Sampras at his best was a better grass court player than Federer who had more Wimbledons. Yada Yada
Angrybirdstar
Professional
i would go with Li Na and Azarenka over Serena in those years, and perhaps Wozniacki depending on what you value on return and how you isolate returning as a skill. prime Navratilova at certain times would be the most recent comparison, i think
more or less even, along with Sampras and McEnroe, and likely Laver and Rosewall at very least from pre-OE; all ahead of Agassi
Azarenka's return of serve was outstanding, and her biggest weapon.
I'd say that in those years her return was more consistent overall than Serena's - she was great at neutralising 1st serves, taking the ball early, hitting effective angles etc. She didn't seem to hit a lot of return winners, and I think sometimes she didn't punish 2nd serves as well as she could have done.
Serena's return was more explosive, and she'd hit more first strike return winners, especially with her forehand return, with her backhand return less explosive but but more consistent overall,, and I think better at destroying weakish 2nd serves.
I would say that Serena was more prone to coasting through, or even flat-out tanking, some return games after opening up break / double break leads early on in sets, as she knew that her ultra-reliable and explosive serve would then see her through to the finish line. No other female player around could afford to do that. Though in 2012-2013, she was winning a lot of sets 6-0, 6-1 and 6-2, so she was continuing to more ruthless on return for longer. Also I'd say that overall, Serena's return was probably a bit more effective than Azarenka's during the biggest points of the biggest matches. Then again on the flipside, there is the factor that Serena didn't have to face any opponent with a serve anywhere near as good or as reliable as hers.
Obviously, this has been discussed endlessly, but I truly believe Seles would have surpassed Graf, on all surfaces except grass.
insideoutforehanders
Professional
The bad luck for Evert was the US Open was not on hard courts from 74 to 77. She has a good chance of winning atleast 2 of 75-77, and might win all 3. She has a good chance of winning 74 and maybe even 73 if it were on hard courts instead of grass, not a for sure winner either year of course but a stronger chance than with it being on the actual surface of grass, where it is absolutely no surprise Court, King, Goolagong eclipsed her those 2 years.
Then add to that if Australia were on hard courts. She played it regularly from 81 onwards, and won it twice on grass, so safe to say she wins atleast that, but quite possibly 1 or 2 more, had it been on slow hard courts.
In this reality her hard court prowess would get much more recognition. As it was she didn't get as much chance to compile as impressive a record on hard courts . Just evaluating what was, she won 3 US Opens on hard courts, but never defended a title there. Navratilova won more US Opens on hard courts, was dominant there in winning 4 in 5 years, and barely losing in the final the one time in between, and reached 8 finals from 81-91, while owning the head to head with Evert both there and on hard courts in general. That is what most people are probably going on, as actual results still probably have to take precedence over hypotheticals, as someone who myself veers into hypotheticals too much at times. Evert got screwed over likely a higher place and more recognition on the surface by circumstances.
First the pettiest of details. Wiki says the head to head was 8-8 on hard. I thought there was another hard court victory of Evert's, but it might be wishful fanbased recollection. In any case lets call it a draw there. Otherwise I agree with the rest.
Martina took her sweet time doing anything at the US Open. It was the last major she won was in 1983 in New York and it was only her second final. She was too young and immature when she played the grass, but she was good enough on clay to reach the finals of Italian and German in 1974, then Amelia Island, and the Italian, and the French in 1975 as well as all five matches of Fed Cup right before, beating every credible clay candidate except Evert. It was Evert who was standing in her way from being a clay court prodigy! But on that Har tru, other than the aforementioned Amelia Island, its pretty ugly. She losing more often in the first three rds, than she is getting into finals! She got one semifinal at the Open to show for 3 years of play. The next two years, while is soaring to the top of the charts, she is stuck in Semifinal land at Flushing meadow. Once she was really ready, in 1983, she was crushing on hard courts!
Chris suffered a lot on hard courts from being too slow to change rackets and get into better shape. She had both Austin in 1979, and Martina in 1981 & 1983 overpowering her at Flushing meadow. Once she got those problems solved, burnout and injuries festered. By 1985, she just wasn't 'fresh' and motivated in late summers anymore match after match. She was definitely playing better quality for Key Biscayne and Delray Beach in Spring in Florida than she was in Toronto or the Open in August and September. And then came arguably the GOAT of hard courts - Graf and her hard court game seems dated and she is looking slow comparatively.
Those highlight reel match losses can leave the wrong impression with younger posters. It sure wasn't the surface that was her problem or those 90+ percentages above thread would not be as high as they were. I think an Aussie hard court season earlier in the year, might have been very good to her before Graf in 1987.
Last edited:
Holmes
Legend
Not extremely knowledgeable about the women's game, so I'll leave that to others.
Men:
Factoring achievements adjusted for conditions, level and era strength
Grass:
1. 2004 final 1st set Roddick
2. Petros
3. Nole
4. Bjorn
5. Federer
American Hard:
1. Petros/Federer
2. Connors
3. Lendl
4. Mac
5. Nole
Australia:
1. Nole
2. Federer
3. Agassi
4. Petros
5. Nadal (for beating and later thrashing Fed) or Lendl
Clay:
1. Rafael
2. Bjorn
3. Guga
4. Lendl
5. Bruguera
Men:
Factoring achievements adjusted for conditions, level and era strength
Grass:
1. 2004 final 1st set Roddick
2. Petros
3. Nole
4. Bjorn
5. Federer
American Hard:
1. Petros/Federer
2. Connors
3. Lendl
4. Mac
5. Nole
Australia:
1. Nole
2. Federer
3. Agassi
4. Petros
5. Nadal (for beating and later thrashing Fed) or Lendl
Clay:
1. Rafael
2. Bjorn
3. Guga
4. Lendl
5. Bruguera
I think it was very good luck....but I get the point. She had fewer oppos on hard courts during the 70's
Angrybirdstar
Professional
was expecting McEnroe at #5 over Federer tbh
thoughts on how Courier/Becker/Sinner factor into the 5th slot comp?
Holmes
Legend
Yes on achievements, but Nadal demonstrated a higher level and has the number 2's scalp and soul multiple times.
Wilander has a good case as well:
1983: wins on grass, beating McEnroe and Lendl
1984: wins on grass, beating Edberg and Curren
1988: wins on Rebound Ace, beating Edberg and Cash
Only player in the Open Era other than Djokovic, Federer, and Agassi to win 3+ Australian Opens, and he did it on two very different surfaces.
Holmes
Legend
Wilander criminally underrated but still, Nadal at 5 for me.
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
Thought I would take a crack at this.
Womens:
Grass -
1. Navratilova
2. King
3. Graf
4. Serena Williams
5. Venus Williams
Clay
1. Evert
2. Graf
3. Seles
4. Henin
5. Sanchez-Vicario
Hard court
1. S. Williams
2. Graf
3. Seles
4. Navaratilova
5. Evert
Men
Grass
1. Sampras
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. Djokovic
5. Becker
Clay
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Wilander
5. Lendl
Hard court
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Lendl
4. Sampras
5. Agassi
Really hard to since grass at Wimbledon is completely different since early 2000s. Grass is also different in different places and used to be used more. Clay can and hard courts to a lesser degree can be different. Could have put in people that careers straddled Open and Pre-open such as Court, and Newcombe. McEnroe just missed both grass and hard court. If circumstances were different with the Australian Open, he might have made both.
Womens:
Grass -
1. Navratilova
2. King
3. Graf
4. Serena Williams
5. Venus Williams
Clay
1. Evert
2. Graf
3. Seles
4. Henin
5. Sanchez-Vicario
Hard court
1. S. Williams
2. Graf
3. Seles
4. Navaratilova
5. Evert
Men
Grass
1. Sampras
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. Djokovic
5. Becker
Clay
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Wilander
5. Lendl
Hard court
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Lendl
4. Sampras
5. Agassi
Really hard to since grass at Wimbledon is completely different since early 2000s. Grass is also different in different places and used to be used more. Clay can and hard courts to a lesser degree can be different. Could have put in people that careers straddled Open and Pre-open such as Court, and Newcombe. McEnroe just missed both grass and hard court. If circumstances were different with the Australian Open, he might have made both.
Last edited:
Going to lobby you for Evert to at least replace Hingis https://www.tennis365.com/facts-sta...ntage-hard-courts-steffi-graf-serena-williams In essence Hingis and Evert reach the same number of finals in hard court slams, but Hingis converts one more to a victory. Its quite a demerit for Evert, for one slam less in twice the available annual opportunities. I don't think you are paying sufficient attention to the underbelly, the bad losses which Hingis accrued which of course include a lackluster 'comeback' in 2006-2007, with some early rd losses at the Open and the Aussie.
Here are the 7 highest career win/loss percentages on Hard courts in WTA history. These are the only players to hold an 80% or better win record.
1. Evert is the player with the highest win percentage on hard courts in WTA history, having compiled a 478-44 (91.57%) She won 35 tournaments. Granted she only won 3 US Opens on hard (There were zero available through 3 of her dominant years 74-77, and only one that there was through 1988), and she still reached a total of 4 other finals (1979,1983,198+ 1988 Aussie) but she also had reached the quarterfinals or better in 13 of 13 and the SFs in 11 of 13 ( Lost QF's in 1987,1989)
2. Graf holds a 338-39 (89.65%) She won 37 Hard tournaments. She won 5 Opens and 4 Aussies
3. Navratilova amassed a 375-56 (87%) She won 29 hard tournaments. She won 4 US Opens.
4. Williams won 535 of the 627 matches (85.33). Williams won 47 Hard tournaments. She won an astounding 7 Aussies and 6 US Opens
5. Monica Seles compiled a 311-60 (83.82%) Seles won 28 Hard tournaments.
6. Kim Clijsters holds a 325-68 (82.69%) Clijsters won 31 Hard tournaments She won 3 US opens.
7. Justine Henin won 273 of the 333 (81.98%) Henin won 25 Hard tournaments She won 3 slams (2 Opens and 1 Aussie)
I will do a deeper dive at slams and fill these out with early slam losses for comparison with Evert, but we already know she played more matches on the surface than anyone other than Serena, won the third highest number of tournaments (behind Serena and two less than Graf) and still had the highest percentage of anyone in WTA history.
Last edited:
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
Your lobbying efforts were successful! 
I changed Evert to 5th and took out Hingis.
I changed Evert to 5th and took out Hingis.
insideoutforehanders
Professional
King at #2 on grass, while Court doesn't make Top 5, LMFAO! Total ass clown. Even if King played Australia every single year guaranteed Court has more total grass majors total than your beloved King. And even at Wimbledon, the only place King has done better, she still has a losing head to head with Court.
In reality on grass it is Court who is about 2nd and King about 6th, not the other way around.
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
No reason for you to act like that; time to grow up.
As I said earlier, I didn't count Court (or Newcombe for the men) because the original post said in the Open Era, and much of she did was before that. But yeah, counting the pre-Open era, I would rate certainly her as better than King.
As I said earlier, I didn't count Court (or Newcombe for the men) because the original post said in the Open Era, and much of she did was before that. But yeah, counting the pre-Open era, I would rate certainly her as better than King.
Clay: Evert
Court- 14 important clay titles in: France, Italy, Germany,
and England
Seles
Graf
Henin
yeah, no way in hell is Seles above Chris. Sorry.
No. Because Monica did not win 9 French opens. She won just 3. This is not 'Alternate Universe Tennis' we are judging. We do not take titles from people who played the matches and won the matches to earn the titles so that we can gift them to Seles. We also cannot manufacture clay winning streaks, nor can we use white-out on Monica's existing clay winning percentage, and replace it with a fictional one. Monica has not asked anyone to rewrite history for her.
We cannot gift Evert with Sue Barker's RG, nor Mimi Jausovec's nor Virginia Rucizi's. If you asked Chris, she would not accept those as gifts anyway.
Professional Tennis players of any character don't want, what they did not earn.
Last edited:
Holmes
Legend
Grass is very hard because of the different expectations of the eras, and the different strengths. Federer's era was mostly weak as we all know, and his great (and yes they are great) grass achievements like his ridiculous winning streak come from being a Halle merchant as opposed to the stronger Queens draw that Sampras played at, which in Pete's day was mostly just considered a warm-up.
Sampras's era was very strong, being faster than any other with the great power of graphite combined with the awkward bounces of true grass, and a variety of play styles that could succeed, from your punishing baseline Agassis and Couriers, to your finesse volleyers like Rafter and Henman, to your greats like Becker, and your brutes like Goran and Kracijek. While Borg's era was extremely strong, the fact that it lacked the power of Sampras's era made it less difficult to dominate. You couldn't get blasted off the weird bouncing court as easily as you could in the 90s. As we know, 90s grass was so fast that points were often reduced to 2 strokes, and caused the authorities to intervene and slow the grass down. This actually proves Pete was a stronger champion than any other, as he dominated consistently under conditions that should have resulted in no one being able to do so. Something like Usain Bolt winning the World Atheltics 100 meter dash taking place on an ice rink to the other for 7 of 8 years.
Considering all this, I would put it something like:
Grass:
1. PETE
2. Federer
3. Borg/Novak
4. Mac/Becker - Becker didn't flop hard against PETE. He actually did well. Pete was just too good. All the rest of these gentlemen would have found themselves holding a plate more often than not had they went up against him.
Hard:
Taking level and achievements into account:
1. Djokovic
2. Fed
3. PETE
PETE could have had potentially 4 more US Opens if not for injury or cheaters (favored in 94, 97, 98, 99), and at least one more Aussie if not for injury (favored in 99 so strongly that winner Kafelnikov thanked him for not showing up). But of course, would, coulda, shoulda can be played all day.
Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Nadal
Big gap
3. Borg
Gap
4. Lendl
5. Djokovic/Guga
Last edited:
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Legend
Wilander has a thing or two to say here.
Did I miss something? It looks to me like the ranking you're responding to is:
Clay
1. Evert
2. Court
3. Seles
4. Graf
5. Henin
no, an earlier one that had Chris above Monica on clay, based on FOs she would have won....no, it does not work that way....
Wrong post. It was the OP written in March 2025 which has Seles above everyone on clay with 9 RG, based on the stabbing NOT happening
It says this:
"Clay
1. Seles- Atleast 9 French Opens without stabbing so easy #1.
2. Evert- 10 real French Opens as US open on clay 75-77 replaces 3 French Opens she missed. Behind Seles as much weaker field than when Seles won her 9+ French Opens.
3. Graf- Wins 4 or 5 French Opens even without Seles stabbing in toughest clay era ever. I think prime to prime she beats Chris but 4 or 5 French Opens vs 10 put her behind.
4.Henin
5. Sanchez- 3 French Opens in by far toughest clay era ever."
I don't recall reading it before this was resurrected.
Last edited:
Similar threads
