Who are your top 15 men and women all time.

Who do you rate as the top 15 players of all time in order at this moment. Mine are like this:

Men:

1. Laver
2. Gonzelez
3. Budge
4. Sampras
5. Federer
6. Tilden
7. Borg
8. Rosewall
9. Connors
10. Lendl
11. Kramer
12. McEnroe
13. Agassi
14. Perry
15. Wilander or Newcombe


Women:

1. Evert
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Lenglen
5. Wills Moody
6. Jean King
7. Graf
8. Connoly
9. Seles
10. Serena Williams
11. Evonne Goolagong
12. Maria Bueno
13. Doris Hart
14. Louise Brough
15. Jennifer Capriati or Althea Gibson
 
1. Rod Laver
2. Pancho Gonzalez
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Roger Federer
6. Jimmy Connors
7. John McEnroe
8. Bill Tilden
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Ken Rosewall
11. Don Budge
12. Andre Agassi
13. Boris Becker
14. Stefan Edberg
15. Mats Wilander


Women:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Margaret Court
4. Chris Evert
5. Billie Jean King
6. Monica Seles
7. Mo Connoly
8. Suzanne Lenglen
9. Helen Wills Moody
10. Serena Williams
11. Venus Williams
12. Molla Mallorey(most us opens ever)
13. Maria Bueno
14. Althea Gibson
15. Justine Henin
 
Last edited:

Phil

Hall of Fame
Who do you rate as the top 15 players of all time in order at this moment. Mine are like this:

Men:

1. Laver
2. Gonzelez
3. Budge
4. Sampras
5. Federer
6. Tilden
7. Borg
8. Rosewall
9. Connors
10. Lendl
11. Kramer
12. McEnroe
13. Agassi
14. Perry
15. Wilander or Newcombe


Women:

1. Evert
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Lenglen
5. Wills Moody
6. Jean King
7. Graf
8. Connoly
9. Seles
10. Serena Williams
11. Evonne Goolagong
12. Maria Bueno
13. Doris Hart
14. Louise Brough
15. Jennifer Capriati or Althea Gibson

Yawnnn....zzzzzzzzzzzz...
 

BeckerFan

Rookie
I'm not sure how you can 'rank' Tilden like that.

What equation could possibly lead you to place him behind Federer but ahead of Borg? Seems so arbitrary. The game he played was so different ... and yet nobody has come even remotely close to how dominant he was 1920-1925, and how he changed the way the game of tennis was played AND perceived.

As far as I'm concerned, you either have to rank Tilden first or not rank him at all.

'G.O.A.T.' can only mean Greatest One After Tilden.
 

jaggy

Talk Tennis Guru
1. Federer Navratilova
2. Laver Court
3. Sampras Graf
4. Borg King
5. Gonzalez Evert
6. Tilden Seles
7. Lendl Connoly
8. Budge Lenglen
9. McEnroe S. Williams
10. Kramer Wills Moody
11. Rosewall Goolagong
12. Perry Gibson
13. Connors V. Williams
14. Agassi Bueno
15. Wilander Wade
 
Federer has done nothing to deserve #1 yet. He holds no real records except now the most consecutive weeks at #1. He is somewhere from 5-10 right now.
 
I'm not sure how you can 'rank' Tilden like that.

What equation could possibly lead you to place him behind Federer but ahead of Borg? Seems so arbitrary. The game he played was so different ... and yet nobody has come even remotely close to how dominant he was 1920-1925, and how he changed the way the game of tennis was played AND perceived.

As far as I'm concerned, you either have to rank Tilden first or not rank him at all.

'G.O.A.T.' can only mean Greatest One After Tilden.

He dominated 1920-1925 when there were was how big a world population, how many people playing registered tennis? Also most of those years there were hardly any tournaments and he either played just the U.S Open or both Wimbledon and the U.S Open, won them and that was it.

He wasnt nearly as dominant as Lenglen and Wills Moody on the womens side during the same time, they crushed all their opponents, hardly ever losing sets unlike him losing many sets and having many struggles, and they didnt ever really lose their dominance while they still played, while Tilden certainly did when the young French players began to take over from him.

Ranking him 6th or 7th is probably generous enough as it is.
 

BeckerFan

Rookie
The top women's players have always been much more dominant than their male counterparts. It's as unfair to compare Tilden and Lenglen as it is to compare Sampras and Graf or Navratilova. By those standards, the achievements of most of the top men are really quite small.

And my argument is exactly THAT ... that it's impossible to compare. You rightly acknowledge that Tilden played a very different game from the one that's played today, which I also acknowledged in my post. It seems silly then to sandwich him between guys like Federer and Borg, or McEnroe and Lendl. The guy didn't lose an important match for six years! Either you accept him as THE all-time legend of tennis, or you put him in something of a separate category altogether. Anything else seems illogical.

My own take is that you have to look at players relative to their times. There's no way to settle a 'who would beat whom' debate, and you can't simply compare achievements ... because the relative importance of various achievements (e.g., number of Grand Slam titles) changes over time. What you can do is look at a guy and assess how far he distanced himself from the pack in his own time, how much he brought tennis to a new level. Tilden stood higher above his peers than any other player ever has, and he brought tennis to a new level in a way Sampras, Borg, or even Laver could never even dream of reaching. Tennis was fundamentally different before and after Tilden, which is why I think any discussion of 'G.O.A.T.' needs to accept Tilden as its unassailable starting point.

BTW, there were many more tournaments in those days than you think. Though the records are incomplete, Tilden probably won around 150 titles. That's more than anyone but Laver ... far more than Lendl or Connors, who holds the 'official' ATP record.
 

Warriorroger

Hall of Fame
01 Roger Federer & Steffi Graf
02 Pete Sampras & Martina Navratilova
03 Rod Laver & Margaret Court
04 Bjorn Borg & Chris Evert
05 Andre Agassi & Serena Williams
06 Ivan Lendl & Monica Seles
07 Boris Becker & Maureen O connoly
08 John McenRoe & Martina Hingis
09 Don Budge & Venus Williams
10 Stefan Edberg & Suzanne Lenglen.
11 Jimmy Connors & Billy Jean King.

I'll think of the rest.
 

Nick Irons

Semi-Pro
:D :D :D
Obviously Jenny fans are as intellectually challenged as their fave ....

Condi

I like the manner in which she put her run together; being out of tennis, being knocked down and written off. I like the comeback, I like her Gold Medal of Graf, I like the story. She proved she really is a Champion in spite of the implosion as a teenager.

I like her beating a then Number 1 Hingis is straight sets at the Aussie and beating Clijsters in a sick 3rd Set (12 -10) tiebreak and I especially like her spanking Serena on the bigs stage.

JCap proved she is the real deal.
 
I like the manner in which she put her run together; being out of tennis, being knocked down and written off. I like the comeback, I like her Gold Medal of Graf, I like the story. She proved she really is a Champion in spite of the implosion as a teenager.

I like her beating a then Number 1 Hingis is straight sets at the Aussie and beating Clijsters in a sick 3rd Set (12 -10) tiebreak and I especially like her spanking Serena on the bigs stage.

JCap proved she is the real deal.

Indeed she is.
Capriatifanatic isn't, though ...

Condi
 
N

ne1410is

Guest
lol she got clowned on serena's mtv show. that was funny. i mean she is a very type a personality. she would complain about the smallest things during matches, like someone's cell phone going off on court 14 when she was on center court.
 

Azzurri

Legend
Who do you rate as the top 15 players of all time in order at this moment. Mine are like this:

Men:

1. Laver
2. Gonzelez
3. Budge
4. Sampras
5. Federer
6. Tilden
7. Borg
8. Rosewall
9. Connors
10. Lendl
11. Kramer
12. McEnroe
13. Agassi
14. Perry
15. Wilander or Newcombe


Women:

1. Evert
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Lenglen
5. Wills Moody
6. Jean King
7. Graf
8. Connoly
9. Seles
10. Serena Williams
11. Evonne Goolagong
12. Maria Bueno
13. Doris Hart
14. Louise Brough
15. Jennifer Capriati or Althea Gibson

GRAF....GRAF??? #7???? No offense, but your list is a joke. Unless you are 85-100 years old you cannot rate players like Tilden and Budge....YOU NEVER SAW THEM PLAY. Who the he!! is Doris Hart?? Graf would have destroyed Evert. Who is Doris Hart again?

C'mon. Maybe you were just being nastalgic..if that's the case I forgive you. Don't take my reply too harshly, but seriuosly unless you have seen these players play or watched extensive footage then you cannot possibly rate Don Budge over Roger Federer. ;)

Pancho....Pancho????? Did'nt he invent something? He's more known for that and I can't even remember what he invented.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
I can't think of 15 so here's my 5....

Men:
1. Federer (so much natural talent)
2. Agassi (style & comeback kid)
3. Sampras (7 Wimbs and killer 1st serve)
4. Borg (the first genuine baseliner)
5. Ivanisevic (maniac, unpredictable & emotional)


Women:

1. Graf (golden GS with sublime technique)
2. Seles (first grunting women player with attitude)
3. Navratilova (XX GS, longevity)
4. Sanchez-Vicario (never-say-die attitude)
5. Henin (a lot of talent in a small package)


yeah, I'm youngish.
 

federmann

Rookie
men:

1) Pete Sampras
2)
3)
4) Rod Laver
5) Björn Borg
6)
7) Jimmy Connors
8)
9) John McEnroe
10) Andre Agassi
11) Boris Becker
12) Stefan Edberg
13) Roger Federer (ok, he deserves some credit :mrgreen: )
14)
15)

the spaces are because of the lack of other good, or actually unforgetable players.

women:

1) Steffi Graf
2) Martina Navratilova
3) Chris Evert
4) Billy Jean King
5) Justine Henin
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
 

Azzurri

Legend
Has Federer won the Grand Slam? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Do you really want me to answer that??? I guess so...Budge won the Grand Slam..yes, but 3 of the surfaces were the same (grass). If that were the case for modern players, Sampras would have won 25 slams. Also...I believe Budge played amateur tennis at the time?? Not sure about my last statement. I thought that players before 1968 that were allowed in the Grand Slams had to be amateurs.

I am not taking anything away from the old-timers, but tennis was way, way different. Budge did not dominate his peers like Fed has.
 

Azzurri

Legend
I can't think of 15 so here's my 5....

Men:
1. Federer (so much natural talent)
2. Agassi (style & comeback kid)
3. Sampras (7 Wimbs and killer 1st serve)
4. Borg (the first genuine baseliner)
5. Ivanisevic (maniac, unpredictable & emotional)


Women:

1. Graf (golden GS with sublime technique)
2. Seles (first grunting women player with attitude)
3. Navratilova (XX GS, longevity)
4. Sanchez-Vicario (never-say-die attitude)
5. Henin (a lot of talent in a small package)


yeah, I'm youngish.

Nice picks...I appreciate you being honest (about your age and lack of experience) and letting us know you are too young to remember some of the players from years past and not try to rank them when you only saw a handfull of clips. :)
 

BeckerFan

Rookie
Do you really want me to answer that??? I guess so...Budge won the Grand Slam..yes, but 3 of the surfaces were the same (grass). If that were the case for modern players, Sampras would have won 25 slams.

I disagree. Sampras played in an era when grass had become something of a specialist's surface ... he had only a handful of consistent threats to worry about on grass. In Budge's time, EVERYONE was the equivalent of a 'grass-court specialist.' A good case can be made that Sampras would have been LESS dominant back then, b/c he would have stood out less on his best surface.

Also...I believe Budge played amateur tennis at the time?? Not sure about my last statement. I thought that players before 1968 that were allowed in the Grand Slams had to be amateurs.

True, but that doesn't take away from the difficulty of the achievement. Only two players achieved the Grand Slam in the entire history of amateur tennis: Budge and Laver. Even as an amateur, Budge was pretty clearly the best player in the world in 1938. He proved it in 1939 by turning pro and beating both of the reigning pro champions (Vines and Perry) in extended tours.

I am not taking anything away from the old-timers, but tennis was way, way different. Budge did not dominate his peers like Fed has.

Actually, this is quite wrong ... Federer does not dominate his peers anywhere NEAR the level that Budge did! In the late 1930s, Budge won on EVERY surface ... he won in singles, doubles and mixed doubles ... and he won the Davis Cup. He had a 92-match winning streak, far more than double Federer's current (and longest) streak. He was a much more complete champion, even winning the 'Wimbledon Slam' (the singles, doubles, and mixed titles in the same tournament) in two consecutive years. Do you think Federer will even come close to hitting some of these marks?

At least until Federer wins the Grand Slam, he is not even in the same league as Budge.
 
If Federer has to win the Grand Slam to even be in the same league as Budge, even winning more slam titles which of course he will, then Sampras and Borg are not in Budge's league either unless you are applying some sort of double standard. Borg has never won the U.S Open and only has 1 more slam title then Federer now, Sampras never even made the final of the French or won more then 2 slams in the same year.

If you believe Federer has to win the Grand Slam before he is even in Budge's league you sure as heck better not consider Sampras or Borg in Budge's league either.
 
Last edited:

chaognosis

Semi-Pro
Sampras and Borg are not in Budge's league. Only Laver is, and maybe Tilden. The French wasn't an open tournament when Tilden was number one in the early '20s, so the Grand Slam was not possible. Nevertheless, Tilden was a true all-court, all-surface champion--and more dominant than any modern pro.
 
Sampras and Borg are not in Budge's league. Only Laver is, and maybe Tilden. The French wasn't an open tournament when Tilden was number one in the early '20s, so the Grand Slam was not possible. Nevertheless, Tilden was a true all-court, all-surface champion--and more dominant than any modern pro.

OK I can accept if you feel the all surface excellence of those 3 put them in their own league based on your criteria. I admit I dont know as much about the old timers. However it annoys me if somebody is going to say Federer has to win a calender slam atleast once before being up with them, if Borg and Sampras are going to be rated up with them. Federer has already a more balanced record among different surfaces then Sampras, winning 1 more Australian on slow hard court, and reaching a French final, and he is only 25; and Borg never won a U.S Open himself, either on hard courts, or on the other surfaces it was on. However you are also saying Borg and Sampras are not in their league so I can accept your criteria in that case.
 
1. Laver
2. Sampras
3. Federer
4. Borg
5. Gonzalez
6. Rosewall
7. Tilden
8. Connors
9. Budge
10. Lendl
11. McEnroe
12. Cochet
13. LaCoste
14. Agassi
15. Perry or Kramer

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4. Court
5. King
6. Lenglen
7. Wills
8. Serena Williams
9. Seles
10. Connoly
11. Goolagong
12. Bueno
13. Henin
14. Gibson
15. Marble
 

Azzurri

Legend
I disagree. Sampras played in an era when grass had become something of a specialist's surface ... he had only a handful of consistent threats to worry about on grass. In Budge's time, EVERYONE was the equivalent of a 'grass-court specialist.' A good case can be made that Sampras would have been LESS dominant back then, b/c he would have stood out less on his best surface.



True, but that doesn't take away from the difficulty of the achievement. Only two players achieved the Grand Slam in the entire history of amateur tennis: Budge and Laver. Even as an amateur, Budge was pretty clearly the best player in the world in 1938. He proved it in 1939 by turning pro and beating both of the reigning pro champions (Vines and Perry) in extended tours.



Actually, this is quite wrong ... Federer does not dominate his peers anywhere NEAR the level that Budge did! In the late 1930s, Budge won on EVERY surface ... he won in singles, doubles and mixed doubles ... and he won the Davis Cup. He had a 92-match winning streak, far more than double Federer's current (and longest) streak. He was a much more complete champion, even winning the 'Wimbledon Slam' (the singles, doubles, and mixed titles in the same tournament) in two consecutive years. Do you think Federer will even come close to hitting some of these marks?

At least until Federer wins the Grand Slam, he is not even in the same league as Budge.

Hey...good arguements. Its not always someone can back up his opinion. Thanks for the lesson. I really did not know much about Budge other than the grand slam. I have to say though that Budge did not face the competition Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Fed faced. Back then Tennis was not a big sport...it was like golf...for the rich and snobby. Tennis hit a boom in the 70's. I just think 90% of the people on this board would disagree with you that Budge is so much better than Fed. Its actually a little amusing. Baseball might be the only sport you can compare generations. The sport has not changed...yes the ball is livelier and the mound is not as high...but the true nature of the sport has not changed much. Tennis on the other hand has completely changed.....the racquet and balls are not the same. Baseball is still leather gloves, leather ball (that has changed a bit I agree) and wooden bat. You needed to be able to hit a ball 90 mph in the 30's just like today. Willie Mays, Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio would be great players today. Give Don Budge a Babolat and Fed will nearly kill him regardless. The game today is vastly superior. Remember...this is only my opinion...just like yours.:)
 

Azzurri

Legend
Sampras and Borg are not in Budge's league. Only Laver is, and maybe Tilden. The French wasn't an open tournament when Tilden was number one in the early '20s, so the Grand Slam was not possible. Nevertheless, Tilden was a true all-court, all-surface champion--and more dominant than any modern pro.

I honestly believe that Tilden would have his arm fall off after Roddick serves him a little yellow fuzzy ball. Tilden played in an era of beautiful tennis. Like soccer, 75 years ago the sports are much different than today. When we talk about ranking we ned to consider how they would fare against each other and yes how they dominated their peers. But tennis, golf and football were not a popular sport in those days. Baseball was king. Rich sissy kids (hence the perfect example...Tilden) played tennis.
 

Azzurri

Legend
OK I can accept if you feel the all surface excellence of those 3 put them in their own league based on your criteria. I admit I dont know as much about the old timers. However it annoys me if somebody is going to say Federer has to win a calender slam atleast once before being up with them, if Borg and Sampras are going to be rated up with them. Federer has already a more balanced record among different surfaces then Sampras, winning 1 more Australian on slow hard court, and reaching a French final, and he is only 25; and Borg never won a U.S Open himself, either on hard courts, or on the other surfaces it was on. However you are also saying Borg and Sampras are not in their league so I can accept your criteria in that case.

He FF...I am in agreeance with you, but don't waste your time with logic (I have seem to). Some people don't get it. I think there are some Fed haters here.;)
 

jktennis59

New User
Only players that I've seen in action:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi
4. Borg
5. McEnroe
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Vilas
9. Becker
10. Edberg
11. Moya
12. Kuerten
13. Ivanisevic
14. Rafter
15. Nastase

1. Navratilova
2. Graff
3. Seles
4. Sanchez V.
5. Henin
6. Evert
7. Clijsters
8. Serena W.
9. Venus W.
10. Novotna
11. Hingis
12. Davenport
13. Sharapova
14. Sabatini
15. Mauresmo

The order doesn't matter.
 
N

ne1410is

Guest
MY list. lol

Men

1. Michael Chang
2. John Newcombe
3. Rod Laver
4. Arthur Ashe
5. Pete Sampras
6. Jaime Yzaga
7. John McEnroe
8. Bill Tilden
9. Vince Van Patten
10. Andre Agassi
11. Stefan Edberg
12. Pancho Gonzalez
13. Fred Stolle
14. Fred Perry
15. Jimmy Connors

Women

1. Monica Seles
2. Mary Pierce
3. Anna Kournikova
4. Gabriela Sabatini
5. Kimiko Date
6. Althea Gibson
7. Irina Spirlea
8. Venus Williams
9. Serena Williams
10. Jana Novotna
11. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
12. Martina Navratilova
13. Billie Jean King
14. Steffi Graf
15. Suzanne Lenglen
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
Sampras and Borg are not in Budge's league. Only Laver is, and maybe Tilden. The French wasn't an open tournament when Tilden was number one in the early '20s, so the Grand Slam was not possible. Nevertheless, Tilden was a true all-court, all-surface champion--and more dominant than any modern pro.

How do you know? Did you see Tilden play? I think you're just parroting something you've read.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
It would be nice to find out how many rounds there were when they played in the 1920's.

I'm sure there was less 'players' dedicated to the game than there are today, which means there was 'less' competition.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I agree with Seles at No. 5 or 6, but it just pains me even ranking her. I was a huge Seles fan and it just kills me what happened to her and how it reduced her place in tennis history.

Granted, she would not have won every major for the years she missed, but she definitely would have won more. She was at the absolute peak of her career when she got stabbed. And, even when she returned, missing all that time had to affect her.

Graf ended with 22 Slams, Seles with 9. Absent the stabbing, I think it is fair to say that Seles wins 12-14 and Graf ends with 16-19.
 

larlarbd

Banned
Federer has done nothing to deserve #1 yet. He holds no real records except now the most consecutive weeks at #1. He is somewhere from 5-10 right now.

I agree , to prove your point I'll wait till the end of 2007 .
We will see the the FEDEX plane disappear & FED will appear as Tom Hanks in castaway - yes , he will survive but by then the world has buried him .
 
I agree with Seles at No. 5 or 6, but it just pains me even ranking her. I was a huge Seles fan and it just kills me what happened to her and how it reduced her place in tennis history.

Granted, she would not have won every major for the years she missed, but she definitely would have won more. She was at the absolute peak of her career when she got stabbed. And, even when she returned, missing all that time had to affect her.

Graf ended with 22 Slams, Seles with 9. Absent the stabbing, I think it is fair to say that Seles wins 12-14 and Graf ends with 16-19.


Seles would not have won all of her 8 slams pre-stabbing without Graf being distracted big-time by a nasty blackmail scandal between spring 1990 and winter 1992. In that time Seles won 5 slams.
And Graf had to undergo reconstructive knee surgery in 1997 when she was just 27 and more dominant than ever (that surgery virtually ended her career).

Absent the scandal and the surgery, I think it is fair to say that Seles wins 4-5 and Graf ends with 25-29.

Condi
 
N

ne1410is

Guest
I am sad for Seles that she had to endure such a horrible situation. But I wonder if that opened the door for Mary Pierce to win her first slam in 95 at Australia which made it easier for her to win RG in 2000 with the experience. I love both.
 

chaognosis

Semi-Pro
How do you know? Did you see Tilden play? I think you're just parroting something you've read.

Of course I never saw Tilden play. Very few living have seen him, much less seen him at his prime. But I find it pretty sad to think one isn't allowed to talk about something one hasn't witnessed firsthand. Am I not allowed to think Liszt was a great pianist, or Ruth a great baseball player? History is about working with sources--READING, which you seem to think is a bad thing--and making one's own informed conclusions based on the available evidence. I've put in the work to be able to say something about pre-war tennis. Please let me at least try to keep the memory of these great players alive, in spite of people like yourself (and most of this forum) who want to pretend that tennis only began the day you first started watching it on TV.
 
I am sad for Seles that she had to endure such a horrible situation. But I wonder if that opened the door for Mary Pierce to win her first slam in 95 at Australia which made it easier for her to win RG in 2000 with the experience. I love both.


IMO, the 95 AO win made Pierce complacent. Otherwise she would have won more slams in the end-90ies most certainly.

Condi
 
I agree with Seles at No. 5 or 6, but it just pains me even ranking her. I was a huge Seles fan and it just kills me what happened to her and how it reduced her place in tennis history.

Granted, she would not have won every major for the years she missed, but she definitely would have won more. She was at the absolute peak of her career when she got stabbed. And, even when she returned, missing all that time had to affect her.

Graf ended with 22 Slams, Seles with 9. Absent the stabbing, I think it is fair to say that Seles wins 12-14 and Graf ends with 16-19.

12-14 is much too low an estimate for Seles. Even if you are the most stingy to her as possible Seles won 3 slams in both 91 and 92, and had already won the first slam of 93. Graf was #1 in 93, 94, 95, and 96 with Seles out, and Seles won 3 slams in both 91 and 92 with Graf #2 and Graf was 4 years older then her by this point. Seles had 7 slams before 1993, 8 with the first slam of 1993. Even if she dropped down to 2 slams per year from 93-96, which is a huge 1 slam per year drop off, and is being probably mean to Seles considering Graf was 4 years older, and was clearly on top after the Seles stabbing, and wasnt able to stop Seles from winning 3 each of the 2 years before that, Seles would still win another 8 slams in 93-96 and 7 more from the time she was stabbed. She is already now up to 15. Hingis in 97 was dominant, and Hingis has shown she cant handle top power players, wouldnt Seles at worst have won 2 of the 4 slams that year? She would already be up to 17. She still has another 5 years of tennis probably from start 98-end of 2002. The level was such that even Capriati, who could win no slams during the Seles era took 3 slams in 2001-2002. Why couldnt she atleast win another 3 slams those 5 years and end up with 20. I would say 20 is the absolute worst unless there are unforseen problems with injury or unknown potholes.

As for Graf, the absolute most she could have won is 20 as well I believe. Being as generous as possable would have her and Seles splitting the 16 slams in 93-96, and for the reasons I described with Seles this is being super generous to Graf. Graf had 11 before the stabbing, so giving her the most generous total of 8 more those 4 years she is up to 19. Graf was too injured to win slams her final 3 years mostly of 97-99 but won a French in 99, and came close at Wimbledon. If she somehow manages to win 1 of those 2 with Seles not enduring tragedy, she would end up with 20 as well.

So 20 is the absolute lowest most stingy estimate for Seles. While 20 is the most generous leanient estimate for Graf.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I defintely don't agree with Condoleeza's assessment regarding Seles. Obviously, you like Graf a lot, and no doubt she is a great champion and even with Seles around, very well may have won more Slams than Seles. But, Seles at 4-5 and Graf near 30 Slams seems ridiculous.

I agree with federerfanatic that Seles could have won 20 or more slams, but I think that you may be overstating your position. You mention Hingis and how she can't handle power. But, Hingis had a winning record against Seles and caused problems for Seles. Also, although Graf and Seles probably would have won most of the Slams between them while Seles was out, it doesn't mean that someone else such as Aranxta S-V or Pierce wouldn't have won one.

My only point is that Seles was a really good player and would have won more Slams had she not been stabbed.
 
I defintely don't agree with Condoleeza's assessment regarding Seles. Obviously, you like Graf a lot, and no doubt she is a great champion and even with Seles around, very well may have won more Slams than Seles. But, Seles at 4-5 and Graf near 30 Slams seems ridiculous.

I agree with federerfanatic that Seles could have won 20 or more slams, but I think that you may be overstating your position. You mention Hingis and how she can't handle power. But, Hingis had a winning record against Seles and caused problems for Seles. Also, although Graf and Seles probably would have won most of the Slams between them while Seles was out, it doesn't mean that someone else such as Aranxta S-V or Pierce wouldn't have won one.

My only point is that Seles was a really good player and would have won more Slams had she not been stabbed.

You could be right but Hingis did very well vs Seles when Seles was not the same player post-stabbing. Also remember I just said it seemed safe and very conservative for me to believe Seles wins atleast 2 slams in 97, so that does not neccessarily say it would then be impossible for Hingis to even have won 2 that year. The only genuinely great players among the power hitters that Hingis played alot later were Davenport, Venus, and Serena, and maybe Capriati. Hingis went 4-7 vs Serena starting in 99, 5-8 vs Venus starting in 99, 6-11 vs Davenport starting in 98. She still had her share of wins over them and wasnt totally uncompetitive but lost more then she won. Without going into an extensive drawn out comparision Davenport and the Williams all have much more dominating serves then Seles did, but Davenport doesnt move nearly as well as Seles did, and the Williams make many more unforced errors. Hingis even went 0-4 vs Capriati in 2001-2002, or if you count 2000 when Capriati returned to playing decently enough to be a top 15 player again it would be 2-4 during that time. Capriati is just a lesser version of Seles always IMO.

As for Sanchez Vicario or Pierce winning a slam I honestly dont believe Sanchez Vicario or Pierce would have won a slam with both Graf and Seles in their primes together, and both so dominantly on top of all other players during those years at the same time. Their chances to win a slam probably even improves a bit later with the youngsters coming in and softening up the Graf-Seles dominance and opening up the field of contenders. Sanchez Vicario won the 94 U.S Open with Graf dominating the first half of the final and aggravating her injured back in the middle of the 2nd set, moving and bending very stiffly the whole second half of the 2nd set and entire 3rd set, in hindsight clearly the only way Sanchez Vicario was able to win that particular match. Pierce won the 95 Australian Open with neither Graf (injury)or Seles(stabbing layoff)there. Sanchez Vicario did not have to play either Graf(upset by Pierce in semis)or Seles(stabbing layoff)to win the 94 French Open. Martinez winning Wimbledon in 94 did not play Graf(upset by McNeil in 1st round), Seles(stabbing layoff), Sanchez Vicario(upset by Garrison in 4th round), or Pierce(did not play). Remember Seles was 20-3 vs Sanchez Vicario, and pre-stabbing won all 6 sets she played vs Sanchez in grand slams; and 20-1 vs Martinez. Pierce held her own vs Seles, 5-4 overall, Seles going 3-0 vs Pierce pre-stabbing when Pierce was nowhere near the player she was later when Seles would return, post-stabbing Seles went 2-4 vs the improved Pierce although clearly not the same Seles either now. Pierce maybe had the best chance to have won a slam from 93-96 had Seles not been stabbed, Sanchez not so much chance, Martinez almost none. So maybe I am wrongfully discounting the possability of Pierce winning 1 or even 2slams during that period, but honestly still dont see Sanchez as explained above, and certainly not Martinez.
 
Last edited:
N

ne1410is

Guest
i think hingis had and has seles' number. she beat seles like 2 and 3 or something bad in the bank of the west classic in 97. she did the same 1 and 2 or something at the lipton later on. hingis was honing her game when seles was number 1. seles even says she remembers meeting hingis when hingis was a junior. i have no doubt that melanie molitor would have specifically spent a LOT of time figuring out a game plan that would work against seles because the assumption would be that seles would still be a dominant player by the time hingis became a pro. the slip up at the french when seles beat hingis was largely due to hingis' rebelliousness and total lack of preparation which shocked even melanie molitor. the night before her match with seles, i think she was riding the elevators up and down after failing to figure out something to do with her boyfriend at the time. in her practice beforehand she was just hitting crazy shots for fun and giggling. hingis wasn't serious. its sad because i really like seles much more as a person than hingis.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
Seles would not have won all of her 8 slams pre-stabbing without Graf being distracted big-time by a nasty blackmail scandal between spring 1990 and winter 1992. In that time Seles won 5 slams.
And Graf had to undergo reconstructive knee surgery in 1997 when she was just 27 and more dominant than ever (that surgery virtually ended her career).

Absent the scandal and the surgery, I think it is fair to say that Seles wins 4-5 and Graf ends with 25-29.

Condi

Was the blackmail scandal you refer to, about her father?

Anyway, take out Gunther, blackmail scandal & knee surgery & it would have been a great rivalry. I think Graf would still have ended up with 20+ & Seles 15+. They both would have dominated the women's tour together. The #1 would have changed hands SO many times.
 

Warriorroger

Hall of Fame
Hinigis to me is proof that Graf was the better player than Seles. Hinigs owned Seles, but Graf owned Hingis. No sane person would deny the fact that Seles would have gotten more titles had she not been stabbed. She was young when she returned and Graf still won when she was in the very last part of her career. I think Graf's run at the 1999 RG served as proof that Graf was a better player. As a 29 yeard old she beat the top 3 to win a GS title on clay! Her game was better matched against all generations and her last two finals made up for the grand slam titles she won in 1993.
 
Last edited:

The Grand Slam

Hall of Fame
Screw skill... I'll just name my top 15 FAVOURITES. :) In no particular order:

Roger Federer.
John McEnroe.
Benjamin Becker.
Marat Safin.
Gustavo Kuerten.
Lleyton Hewitt.
Gaston Gaudio
Juan Martin del Potro.
Chris Guccione.
Marcos Baghdatis.
Pete Sampras.
Pat Rafter.
Fernando Gonzalez.
Andy Murray.
Amelie Mauresmo.


Martina Hingis.
Maria Sharapova.
Jelena Jankovic.
Justine Henin.
Alicia Molik.
Samantha Stosur.
Melanie South.
Shahar Peer.
Tatiana Golovin.
Maria Kirilenko.
Vasilisa Bardina.
Sophie Ferguson.
Casey Dellacqua.
Daniela Hantuchova.
Monica Seles.
 
Yeah I will do the same thing as The Grand Slam:

Women-

Helen Kelesi
Carling Basset
Patricia Hy
Jana Novotna
Hana Mandilikova
Kimiko Date
Conchita Martinez
Kim Clijsters
Justine Henin
Lindsay Davenport
Elena Dementieva
Evonne Goolagong
Maria Bueno
Nancy Richey
Virgina Wade

and Men-

Roger Federer
Tommy Haas
Fernando Gonzalez
Carlos Moya
Ivan Lendl
Thomas Enqvist
Fernando Verdasco
Thomas Berdych
Novak Djokovic
Richard Krajicek
Henri Cochet
Jan Michael Gambill
Tom Okker
 

krprunitennis2

Professional
Who do you rate as the top 15 players of all time in order at this moment. Mine are like this:

Men:

1. Laver
2. Gonzelez
3. Budge
4. Sampras
5. Federer
6. Tilden
7. Borg
8. Rosewall
9. Connors
10. Lendl
11. Kramer
12. McEnroe
13. Agassi
14. Perry
15. Wilander or Newcombe


Women:

1. Evert
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Lenglen
5. Wills Moody
6. Jean King
7. Graf
8. Connoly
9. Seles
10. Serena Williams
11. Evonne Goolagong
12. Maria Bueno
13. Doris Hart
14. Louise Brough
15. Jennifer Capriati or Althea Gibson


=,( No Hingis?
 
Top