Who do you consider the top 15 woman players of the open era?

buscemi

Legend
Talk to me when 4 of the top ten players, or 8 of the top 20 are absent.
Starting with the first Major that Court won, the 1960 Australian Open, 9/11 top eleven players weren't there:

Angela Mortimer​
Sandra Reynolds​
Zsuzsa Kormoczy​
Beverly Baker Fleitz​
Darlene Hard​
Yola Ramirez​
Ann Jones​
Sally Moore​
Shirley Bloomer​
 
Margaret won 12-13 Grand Slam singles titles (and I'm not even counting the doubles and mixed doubles GS events during that same time period) that Billie Jean did not even participate in for various reasons, such as going to college and having a part time job to help pay for her tuition, as well as numerous injuries including at least eight knee operations, as well as the US(L)TA not even allowing her to play at Roland Garros until 1967. Billie Jean was only a part-time player until 1965 for those reasons and many more. It would be like Chrissie or Martina not playing in the same GS event against each other 12 or 13 times. Imagine how many more titles each would have won had the other not participated in the same GS tournaments. Borg never won at Oz or at the US Open, which precludes him from being considered the best ever. He won six Roland Garros titles, and five Wimbledon titles. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer were an amazing trio, especially considering the fact that they all played simultaneously, and yet each managed to win 24, 22 and 20 GS singles titles each. Unbelievable! Connors, Borg and McEnroe pale in comparison to those three future legends.
You pretty much proved my point about how people favor players from their time as a fan.

You pointed out that Borg never won "Oz". Pretty sure you know he only entered once and he was a teenager.
Yet Court won it several times but there are excuses of why we can't count them. Are we really not going to count her winning it when she was 17 and the #1 player? (Bueno) She also won tournament another time that Bueno entered and a couple of times against Goolagong. Does Graf get credit for Grand Slams won without Seles?

Yes of course, sometimes the draw was not when Court won it. Sometimes it was not. We can't just dismiss what she did without really devling into what she accomplsied. Again, the women' was not strong when Williams won her last 10 Grand slams.

As for Nadal Djokovic, and Federer, of course they were great. However, they greatly benefited from having the next generation of tennis players being so weak. This enabled them to win many more Grand Slams in their 30s that they would not won had the next generation not been so weak. .

All of these players were great, regardless of when they played. But we can't just dismiss all the accomplishments of players before our time and at the same time not give a second thought as regarding the advantages that that a modern players had.
 

Kiam

Rookie
Seles ahead of Court is batshit crazy. Even the what if for the stabbing which is flawed principle to begin with anyway, would never be enough considering Seles never wins even close to 24 singles slams even without the stabbing. Let alone atleast 3 majors at all the slams (imagine Seles winning Wimbledon 3 times without the stabbing, ROTFL) and Court has her amazing doubles career too.
Court won 12 in the open era. Monica won nine. The competition in Monica’s time was a lot tougher….I think that would be 5he argument
 

anarosevoli

Semi-Pro
1. Serena

2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4 Court
5 Seles
6 king
7. Graf
8. Venus
9. Henin
10. Davenport
Funny list.
Graf at 7 lol. If you knew 15 and not only 10, probably she would rank 12th?

Holding EVERYTHING that exists in tennis at the same time: Grand Slam (first and only one on 3 surfaces) + Olympic Gold + YEC (on 4th surface, carpet) + Fed Cup + all Tier 1 tournaments of that time (Miami, Berlin).
Most number 1 weeks.
Only one (male or female) with 4 career slams.
Only one (male or female) with 13 consecutive slam finals.
 

Incognito

Legend
Funny list.
Graf at 7 lol. If you knew 15 and not only 10, probably she would rank 12th?

Holding EVERYTHING that exists in tennis at the same time: Grand Slam (first and only one on 3 surfaces) + Olympic Gold + YEC (on 4th surface, carpet) + Fed Cup + all Tier 1 tournaments of that time (Miami, Berlin).
Most number 1 weeks.
Only one (male or female) with 4 career slams.
Only one (male or female) with 13 consecutive slam finals.
Nah! I should have ranked her behind Someone like Sabatinni.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
1. Serena

2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4 Court
5 Seles
6 king
7. Graf
8. Venus
9. Henin
10. Davenport
Graf behind King lol. I know that is not meant seriously but really? Behind Seles is of course also wrong. The disgusting incident aside, we cannot go based on hypotheticals.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Court won 12 in the open era. Monica won nine. The competition in Monica’s time was a lot tougher….I think that would be 5he argument
She only won 11, but then again the OE started when she was 26 and still won a CYGS, 6 in a row and 7 out of 8, before taking another baby break. Btw OE at the women’s side doesn’t really mean much as there was never a separation between pros and amateurs. Putting her behind Seles is absurd. If (alleged) stronger competition is enough to put a 9 slammer over a 24 slammer then what stops you to put Murray above Laver or other stupidities?
 
You pretty much proved my point about how people favor players from their time as a fan.

You pointed out that Borg never won "Oz". Pretty sure you know he only entered once and he was a teenager.
Yet Court won it several times but there are excuses of why we can't count them. Are we really not going to count her winning it when she was 17 and the #1 player? (Bueno) She also won tournament another time that Bueno entered and a couple of times against Goolagong. Does Graf get credit for Grand Slams won without Seles?

Yes of course, sometimes the draw was not when Court won it. Sometimes it was not. We can't just dismiss what she did without really delving into what she accomplsied. Again, the women' was not strong when Williams won her last 10 Grand slams.

As for Nadal Djokovic, and Federer, of course they were great. However, they greatly benefited from having the next generation of tennis players being so weak. This enabled them to win many more Grand Slams in their 30s that they would not won had the next generation not been so weak. .

All of these players were great, regardless of when they played. But we can't just dismiss all the accomplishments of players before our time and at the same time not give a second thought as regarding the advantages that that a modern players had.
If you look at my previous posts. you will see that I have been studying the sport and have been a fan for 51 years. The list on this particular thread is limited to ONLY Open Era players, and I can tell that 99% of the respondents do not even take doubles into consideration. If you check out the thread for greatest of ALL-TIME you will see that I go back over one hundred years in my top ten rankings, which include Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills Moody, Maureen Connolly and Maria Bueno in that list. Oz was so second rate during Borg's era and was the LAST Slam of the calendar year, NOT the first. Borg stated a few times that he would have played Oz had he won the first three Slams and was going for the Grand Slam. Otherwise, he couldn't be bothered, as many players, male AND female felt at the time. There was even talk of replacing Oz with the Year-End Championships for both the men and women as the fourth Slam. Now, I think that Oz is probably the best run and organized of all the Slams. I won't get into your assertion that Serena, Roger, Rafa and Novak had weaker competition. That is open to personal interpretation. Graf, in my opinion, get's an asterisk next to the GS singles tournaments that she won that Seles could not play in although I strongly think that Seles would never have won Wimbledon. The bounce was so low and fast, and one just has to look at how Graf dissected her in their only final round meeting at the Big W by 6/2,6/1). It would be like either Chrissie or Martina not being able to play Slams against each other for 2 1/2 years. Imagine the staggering GS singles totals either one of them would have, had the other not been able to challenge them. Bud Collins said it best. He said that the "all-timers" would have been champions in ANY generation, with the improved racquets, conditioning, nutrition, cross training, etc... Actually, I am worried about the popularity of our sport RIGHT NOW. Both the men's and women's field lack real depth, and there is no one that can be considered a "marquee player" that would fill the seats in an auditorium. Sinner is a great player, but lacks charisma. Sabalenka is hardly a household name. At the YEC for the women, the championship round match attracted only 400 fans (Yes, 400!) to an auditorium that could seat 5,000. They actually darkened the lights so that no one could see how sparse the crowd was. Two more disturbing facts: 1. Fans are aging out as spectators, and not being replaced with "young, fresh blood". 2. 10% of the tennis courts have been changed to pickleball courts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

Incognito

Legend
Graf behind King lol. I know that is not meant seriously but really? Behind Seles is of course also wrong. The disgusting incident aside, we cannot go based on hypotheticals.
At the same time, it is a fact that graf’s biggest teen-aged rival was holder of several majors at the time was stabbed.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
At the same time, it is a fact that graf’s biggest teen-aged rival was holder of several majors at the time was stabbed.
She wouldn’t have had less than 18 even if Seles wasn’t stabbed. Her career up to 1989 alone puts her into King territory.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
She wouldn’t have had less than 18 even if Seles wasn’t stabbed. Her career up to 1989 alone puts her into King territory.
At the time of the stabbing Graf had 11 majors, Seles 8(Seles having won 7 of the last 9 majors)

The players Graf beat to win the last 3 majors of ‘93 - taking her total to 14 - were a joke compared to Seles(love Mary Joe but at no point in her career did anyone think was a potential great, she was part of the B team - and she almost beat Graf in the RG final. Yeah seles wasn’t great on grass, but novotna’s collapse vs Graf at Wimbledon was the worst collapse of all time in a major final(it wasn’t just her blowing a 4-1 lead, it was the way she did - she just hit the worst unforced errors the rest of the way(hitting volleys into the stands etc) Graf didn’t have to do anything to win final 5 games. And Sukova in ‘93 USO final was also a joke, she was well past her prime at this point and was a relic of a past era.
It wasn’t just the Seles stabbing that made ‘93 so bad. Sabatini was a shell of the player that beat Graf six straight times in ‘91 and that beat prime Seles twice in Rome. Capriati looked burned out and miles away from her ‘91 form(it’s crazy to go from maybe the best SF of all time in ‘91 USO between Seles and Capriati to the SF lineup in ‘93 - Manuela maleeva?? Again another relic of 80s. It looked like she hit balls in slow motion compared to Seles/Capriati slugfest. And she got a set off ‘93 Graf. Commentators sounded so depressed at ‘93 USO…
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
At the time of the stabbing Graf had 11 majors, Seles 8(Seles having won 7 of the last 9 majors)

The players Graf beat to win the last 3 majors of ‘93 - taking her total to 14 - were a joke compared to Seles(love Mary Joe but at no point in her career did anyone think was a potential great, she was part of the B team - and she almost beat Graf in the RG final. Yeah seles wasn’t great on grass, but novotna’s collapse vs Graf at Wimbledon was the worst collapse of all time in a major final(it wasn’t just her blowing a 4-1 lead, it was the way she did - she just hit the worst unforced errors the rest of the way(hitting volleys into the stands etc) Graf didn’t have to do anything to win final 5 games. And Sukova in ‘93 USO final was also a joke, she was well past her prime at this point and was a relic of a past era.
It wasn’t just the Seles stabbing that made ‘93 so bad. Sabatini was a shell of the player that beat Graf six straight times in ‘91 and that beat prime Seles twice in Rome. Capriati looked burned out and miles away from her ‘91 form(it’s crazy to go from maybe the best SF of all time in ‘91 USO between Seles and Capriati to the SF lineup in ‘93 - Manuela maleeva?? Again another relic of 80s. It looked like she hit balls in slow motion compared to Seles/Capriati slugfest. And she got a set off ‘93 Graf. Commentators sounded so depressed at ‘93 USO…
Agree with all of that but nevertheless having Graf behind BJK is wild. As you say, at the time of the Seles stabbing she had already 11 slams with a CYGS and holding ALL the important titles simultaneously at one point. This alone could rival BJK’s whole career and it is absurd to think that had the stabbing not happened Graf would never have won any more slams (Seles wouldn’t have stopped her at Wimbledon to start with). Graf was still 6-4 against Monica so it wasn’t utter dominance. I still believe she would have reached 18 even without the stabbing, but even if it was 16 it would have been way ahead of BJK. This leaving aside that all of that is based on a big hypothetical anyways.
 

Gizo

Legend
Even just in the open era, I find it (even) more difficult to compare female players across different eras than male ones for 2 big reasons:

1) Doubles - far more legendary female players have played a lot of doubles tennis, and have won at least 1 major in doubles, than legendary male players, so I've never been sure how much weighting to place on that. IMO it is perfectly reasonable to argue that Navratilova ranks ahead of Graf for example thanks to her doubles exploits.

2) Depth - in men's tennis for as long as I've followed the sport and certainly at least since the start of the open era, there has always at least been a reasonably strong base level of depth, with the likes of Laver and Borg for example facing plenty of brutally difficult early round matches at tournaments. For numerous and perfectly understandable reasons, that simply wasn't the case in women's tennis. I don't think that there was genuinely serious depth, and by serious depth I mean throughout the top 100 at least, until we were into the 21st century.

The lack of depth, and poor standard of early round matches in majors on the women's side, was regularly talked about for a long time. Navratilova and Evert were frequently asked about it during their press conferences. Jon Wertheim wrote a book covering the WTA tour in 2000, and in the chapter focused on the Australian Open quickly noted how on the men's side there were intriguing match-ups galore in the first week, while on the women's side things only properly started during the latter rounds. I and many others could simultaneously appreciate the brilliance of Navratilova, Evert, Mandlikova etc. in the 80s, whilst accepting that there was no serious depth in women's tennis at the time.

I know that many people glorify previous eras in women's tennis and 'lambast' the modern day era, but I think that's simply because their favourite players were racking up big titles for fun, and were routinely able to reach the latter rounds of big events without breaking into a sweat, and also because many people's enjoyment of the sport heavily revolves around a select few 'big name stars'.

I'm a broken record about 1990 and the formation of the ATP was a huge turning point in men's tennis, and how 'grand slam counting' only became a big deal when Sampras closed in on Emerson's record. Clearly the similar logic applies on the women's side - it's a reasonable assumption that Evert wouldn't have missed RG 3 years in a row from 1976-1978 had the major count being a big deal. Without even getting to the Australian Open, for a period the women's RG tournament was less important than a few big money indoor events in the US.
 
You made some good points.
For doubles, I don't count it all unless we are specifically talking about just doubles. They are two different games.
For depth, I pretty much agree that there was not a lot of depth in the women's game years ago. The very best players usually did not have a serious challenge in the early rounds of big tournaments. I remember watching Graf and Navratilova winning matches 6-1 6-1 or something and in less than an hour. Then a men's match between a guy in the top 10 against a guy outside the top 100 would go for over 3 hours and occasionally there was an upset. Hard to say when this changed. May have been gradual.

The Grand Slam Counting was not a big thing until Sampras broke Emerson's record. Nobody, and I mean nobody thought Emerson was the best player of all time. However, most people will latch onto anything that favors the players of their era. Look at how routinely people discount Court's achievements.

As for 1990, winning ATP 1000s (or whatever they are now calling it) became a thing after a while as well.
 
Even just in the open era, I find it (even) more difficult to compare female players across different eras than male ones for 2 big reasons:

1) Doubles - far more legendary female players have played a lot of doubles tennis, and have won at least 1 major in doubles, than legendary male players, so I've never been sure how much weighting to place on that. IMO it is perfectly reasonable to argue that Navratilova ranks ahead of Graf for example thanks to her doubles exploits.

2) Depth - in men's tennis for as long as I've followed the sport and certainly at least since the start of the open era, there has always at least been a reasonably strong base level of depth, with the likes of Laver and Borg for example facing plenty of brutally difficult early round matches at tournaments. For numerous and perfectly understandable reasons, that simply wasn't the case in women's tennis. I don't think that there was genuinely serious depth, and by serious depth I mean throughout the top 100 at least, until we were into the 21st century.

The lack of depth, and poor standard of early round matches in majors on the women's side, was regularly talked about for a long time. Navratilova and Evert were frequently asked about it during their press conferences. Jon Wertheim wrote a book covering the WTA tour in 2000, and in the chapter focused on the Australian Open quickly noted how on the men's side there were intriguing match-ups galore in the first week, while on the women's side things only properly started during the latter rounds. I and many others could simultaneously appreciate the brilliance of Navratilova, Evert, Mandlikova etc. in the 80s, whilst accepting that there was no serious depth in women's tennis at the time.

I know that many people glorify previous eras in women's tennis and 'lambast' the modern day era, but I think that's simply because their favourite players were racking up big titles for fun, and were routinely able to reach the latter rounds of big events without breaking into a sweat, and also because many people's enjoyment of the sport heavily revolves around a select few 'big name stars'.

I'm a broken record about 1990 and the formation of the ATP was a huge turning point in men's tennis, and how 'grand slam counting' only became a big deal when Sampras closed in on Emerson's record. Clearly the similar logic applies on the women's side - it's a reasonable assumption that Evert wouldn't have missed RG 3 years in a row from 1976-1978 had the major count being a big deal. Without even getting to the Australian Open, for a period the women's RG tournament was less important than a few big money indoor events in the US.
Very good post. Two different set of rankings if you include doubles, or if you don't. Billie Jean lost out on many titles because she was trying to build the women's tour, so she wasn't laser focused on tennis. She would often fly off for an interview in a different time zone from the tournament that she was simultaneously playing in, and catch the "red eye" back to the tournament, often arriving a few hours before her match. Chrissie has even written about that. Billie would have won more Slams if she weren't so busy organizing the tour and the WTA. Chrissie played WTT from 1976 to 1978 because she said, "She had no rivals or competition in the tournaments, because all of the top women were playing WTT". She could have won AT LEAST two more Roland Garros titles. The Slams actually meant little until recent decades. Players skipped them routinely (especially at Roland Garros and Oz) in the old days. The women skipped Oz to play on the Virginia Slims circuit, in which a Virginia Slims tournament ran concurrently with that Grand Slam.
 
one thing i haven't seen people discuss much about Court is her clay level. her record at RG seems comparable to (or slightly better than) Navratilova's minus Evert, and her European red clay record seems quite a bit better - Court won Hamburg 3x, Bournemouth 3x, Rome 3x + 1 final (losing to Turner), and Monte Carlo & Barcelona 1x. guess that does get into the competition question again
 
one thing i haven't seen people discuss much about Court is her clay level. her record at RG seems comparable to (or slightly better than) Navratilova's minus Evert, and her European red clay record seems quite a bit better - Court won Hamburg 3x, Bournemouth 3x, Rome 3x + 1 final (losing to Turner), and Monte Carlo & Barcelona 1x. guess that does get into the competition question again
Yes, it does. I agree with you. Opinions are so wide ranging. I don't think anyone will even be able to sway someone to their opinion. (Gee, it sound like politics itself, doesn't it?) LOL!
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
You made some good points.
For doubles, I don't count it all unless we are specifically talking about just doubles. They are two different games.
For depth, I pretty much agree that there was not a lot of depth in the women's game years ago. The very best players usually did not have a serious challenge in the early rounds of big tournaments. I remember watching Graf and Navratilova winning matches 6-1 6-1 or something and in less than an hour. Then a men's match between a guy in the top 10 against a guy outside the top 100 would go for over 3 hours and occasionally there was an upset. Hard to say when this changed. May have been gradual.

The Grand Slam Counting was not a big thing until Sampras broke Emerson's record. Nobody, and I mean nobody thought Emerson was the best player of all time. However, most people will latch onto anything that favors the players of their era. Look at how routinely people discount Court's achievements.

As for 1990, winning ATP 1000s (or whatever they are now calling it) became a thing after a while as well.
I think people over exaggerate the whole "no one was counting until Sampras thing" a bit too much here. Both Sports Illustrated and the NY Times mentioned when Borg won '81 RG that he had 11 majors and was close to the record of 12.
 
I think people over exaggerate the whole "no one was counting until Sampras thing" a bit too much here. Both Sports Illustrated and the NY Times mentioned when Borg won '81 RG that he had 11 majors and was close to the record of 12.
In my opinion, Borg can NEVER be considered the GOAT because he NEVER won the US Open. That and the Big W were the two tournaments where all of the top players who were allowed to, always participated in.
 

Gizo

Legend
I think 16 out of the 23 women to have at won at least 3 singles majors in the open era (for what that distinction is worth on the women's side), also won doubles majors as well - the 7 exceptions are Seles, Capriati, Henin, Sharapova, Kerber, Osaka and Swiatek (a runner-up in doubles at RG in 2021). Barty and Sabalenka are both recent examples of members of the first group of 16. Also beyond that, Krejcikova (with her truly stellar doubles career) and Gauff are other recent examples of players that have won majors in both singles and doubles. Paolini was a runner-up in majors in both singles in doubles last year.

Now clearly amongst that original group of 16, there are still large fluctuations between how seriously different members took doubles tennis throughout their career, i.e. between Navratilova and Graf. But it still paints a picture. Against that backdrop, completely 'throwing out' doubles achievements when it comes to general comparisons between female players doesn't really sit right with me (different to comparisons between male players). But as I said before, I struggle to decide exactly what 'weighting' should be given to doubles achievements.

Even in modern times, I think many players would surely rather win a major in doubles than a WTA 500 title in singles, helped by the fact that the former would earn them significantly more prize money than the latter. When it comes to a major in doubles vs. a WTA 1000 title in singles, I think it would be a different story though.

In doubles tennis, I will say that Wimbledon has pretty much always towered above the other 3 majors. In previous eras when Wimbledon was still clearly no. 1 overall / in singles, I'd say that was even more the case in doubles tennis. Nowadays as the majors have moved largely on a par with each other in singles, I still think that Wimbledon is clearly well ahead of the other 3 within the realms of doubles tennis (where the Olympics is no. 1 though). That's helped by the fact that the doubles events are simply treated with more respect there compared to at the other majors. Having attended all of the majors in person, I noticed that myself.

On the theme of Wimbledon, I've said many times that the individual Wimbledon count was clearly more important than the overall majors count for quite a while. Navratilova breaking Helen Wills Moody's record of 8 Wimbledon singles titles was absolutely huge - I remember the hype about it. She clearly and understandably craved that record. On the men's side, Borg in 1978 merely equalling Fred Perry's feat of winning 3 straight Wimbledon titles, was also just enormous, while he of course simply didn't care about going after Emerson's record.

On the women's side, in 1981 (a wonderful season) the Toyota Championships in New Jersey at the end of the year (won by Austin beating Evert and Navratilova back to back) was IMO definitely a bigger deal than RG (won by Mandlikova beating Evert in the semis). On the flipside on the men's side, at that time I think that RG was definitely a bigger deal than the Masters in Madison Square Garden (clearly still very important in its own right). The US Open > RG gulf was both wider and lasted for longer on the women's side compared to the men's.
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
I think people over exaggerate the whole "no one was counting until Sampras thing" a bit too much here. Both Sports Illustrated and the NY Times mentioned when Borg won '81 RG that he had 11 majors and was close to the record of 12.
I can remember though, that in a 96 article they were talking that Pete Fischer installed in Sampras the goal to beat Laver’s 11 slams. Speaks a little that nobody really knew well about what the actual record was. I believe that story with Borg and the NY times, but clearly it was more a side note than an important record, otherwise not sure whether Borg really would have retired one slam short of the most important record.
 

Gizo

Legend
I think there's a distinction being saying no-one was counting, and that grand slam counting simply wasn't important.

As summarised by Steve Flink:

'Emerson held the record for Grand Slam singles championships for 33 years, when Sampras broke it at Wimbledon in 2000. It was not until Sampras started closing in on that record that many modern followers of the game took serious note of what Emerson accomplished.'

Emerson's record was known by some people within the sport and was mentioned here and there for example in the SI and NY times articles after Borg's 1981 RG win,. However I doubt it was widely known - I'd assume that a lot of active players around at the time wouldn't have had a clue about it, and even some analysts excluding the ones that followed the history of the sport more closely.

And after winning RG in 1981, Borg's own comments that I saw were about him returning there next year, potentially going on to win that tournament 10 times etc. I didn't see any comments from him directly about being 1 short of Emerson's record, indicating that he wasn't asked about it. Clearly if that record was a big deal, he would have been focused on trying to break it, which he wasn't.

In terms of UK coverage, I don't recall any hype at Wimbledon in 1981 about him potentially equalling Emerson's record. The talk was about whether he could extend his remarkable dominance there, whether Mac would stop him etc. I can't remember exactly and I'm not going to re-watch to check, but it wouldn't have surprised me if Emerson's name wasn't mentioned once before / during his SF vs. Connors and final vs. Mac, at least by the BBC.

At Wimbledon in 1999 on the flipside, there definitely was talk in the UK media about Sampras's potentially equalling Emerson's record in addition to the US media, and well before the final. However in the UK, him potentially overtaking Borg in terms of Wimbledon titles won was a bigger deal. I think that Wimbledon was still widely seen as the no. 1 major then - Davenport on the women's side talked about how her Wimbledon title win that fornight felt like a bigger deal than her US Open title win the previous year.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
I think there's a distinction being saying no-one was counting, and that grand slam counting simply wasn't important.

As summarised by Steve Flink:

'Emerson held the record for Grand Slam singles championships for 33 years, when Sampras broke it at Wimbledon in 2000. It was not until Sampras started closing in on that record that many modern followers of the game took serious note of what Emerson accomplished.'

Emerson's record was known by some people within the sport and was mentioned here and there for example in the SI and NY times articles after Borg's 1981 RG win,. However I doubt it was widely known - I'd assume that a lot of active players around at the time wouldn't have had a clue about it, and even some analysts excluding the ones that followed the history of the sport more closely.

And after winning RG in 1981, Borg's own comments that I saw were about him returning there next year, potentially going on to win that tournament 10 times etc. I didn't see any comments from him directly about being 1 short of Emerson's record, indicating that he wasn't asked about it. Clearly if that record was a big deal, he would have been focused on trying to break it, which he wasn't.

In terms of UK coverage, I don't recall any hype at Wimbledon in 1981 about him potentially equalling Emerson's record. The talk was about whether he could extend his remarkable dominance there, whether Mac would stop him etc. I can't remember exactly and I'm not going to re-watch to check, but it wouldn't have surprised me if Emerson's name wasn't mentioned once before / during his SF vs. Connors and final vs. Mac, at least by the BBC.

At Wimbledon in 1999 on the flipside, there definitely was talk in the UK media about Sampras's potentially equalling Emerson's record in addition to the US media, and well before the final. However in the UK, him potentially overtaking Borg in terms of Wimbledon titles won was a bigger deal. I think that Wimbledon was still widely seen as the no. 1 major then - Davenport on the women's side talked about how her Wimbledon title win that fornight felt like a bigger deal than her US Open title win the previous year.
I mean Borg also skipped the AO, and 6 of Emerson’s 12 slams were AO. Shows as well how important that record was. On the other hand, he would have gone to Australia had he won the 1980 USO to go for the CYGS. So winning all four was definitely a bigger thing which is also backed by Agassi in his book (maybe biased due to Sampras having the most and he having the CYGS) or Lendl skipping FOs to better prepare for Wimbledon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

Gizo

Legend
I mean Borg also skipped the AO, and 6 of Emerson’s 12 slams were AO. Shows as well how important that record was. On the other hand, he would have gone to Australia had he won the 1980 USO to go for the CYGS. So winning all four was definitely a bigger thing which is also backed by Agassi in his book (maybe biased due to Sampras having the most and he having the CYGS) or Lendl skipping FOs to better prepare for Wimbledon.

Yes it always seemed clear to me Sampras's ultimate goal / dream during his junior and then early pro days was to emulate Laver and win the grand slam. After he realised that (understandably) would not be possible (especially given his relative difficulties at RG). the focus then shifted more to trying break the record for the most major titles.

It was also clear to me, that his 'pursuit' of Emerson's record was hyped up to try to generate more interest in tennis in the US, as the popularity of the sport noticeably declined there in the 90s compared to in the 80s, also with numerous articles about how the sport was dying, in a bad state etc.

After Sampras won his 13th and then 14th majors, quite a few analysts and historians at the time still thought that him winning 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 years and finishing as the year end no. 1 for 6 straight years were more impressive and significant achievements, than his overall majors record. I did myself.
 

urban

Legend
Well agued. The Emerson record was known, but not - by far not - hyped as much as later. In my recollection, and according to many interviews he gave, or Bergelin gave, Borg had 3 main goals.

1. The Grand Slam. Borg would have played the AO, the last station of a potential GS then, with certainty, he if had won the USO 1978-1980. He and Bergelin said that openly in many interviews, and even Connors would have competed in Melbourne, to prevent Borg from winning the GS. Jimbo made the famous remark, he would follow Borg to the ends of the world, to prevent a potential GS.
2. The Wim series of 5 wins. It was a big thing then, first when Borg approached and the surpassed Fed Perrys 3 Wim running. This string of success was uncommon, because many of the top players after Tilden had turned pro, and missed a lot of majors due to bans. I recall it was also big talk in the press, when Mac made 3 USO running 1979-1981.
3. The missing link of USO. Many experts wrote ( i recall Newsombe for instance) that Borg for his legacy should complete his majors tally with a USO win. Especially since turning to Flushing and cement, the USO got more and more importance, and approached Wim in status. Some began to call the USO the most significant event in tennis.
 

Kiam

Rookie
If you look at my previous posts. you will see that I have been studying the sport and have been a fan for 51 years. The list on this particular thread is limited to ONLY Open Era players, and I can tell that 99% of the respondents do not even take doubles into consideration. If you check out the thread for greatest of ALL-TIME you will see that I go back over one hundred years in my top ten rankings, which include Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills Moody, Maureen Connolly and Maria Bueno in that list. Oz was so second rate during Borg's era and was the LAST Slam of the calendar year, NOT the first. Borg stated a few times that he would have played Oz had he won the first three Slams and was going for the Grand Slam. Otherwise, he couldn't be bothered, as many players, male AND female felt at the time. There was even talk of replacing Oz with the Year-End Championships for both the men and women as the fourth Slam. Now, I think that Oz is probably the best run and organized of all the Slams. I won't get into your assertion that Serena, Roger, Rafa and Novak had weaker competition. That is open to personal interpretation. Graf, in my opinion, get's an asterisk next to the GS singles tournaments that she won that Seles could not play in although I strongly think that Seles would never have won Wimbledon. The bounce was so low and fast, and one just has to look at how Graf dissected her in their only final round meeting at the Big W by 6/2,6/1). It would be like either Chrissie or Martina not being able to play Slams against each other for 2 1/2 years. Imagine the staggering GS singles totals either one of them would have, had the other not been able to challenge them. Bud Collins said it best. He said that the "all-timers" would have been champions in ANY generation, with the improved racquets, conditioning, nutrition, cross training, etc... Actually, I am worried about the popularity of our sport RIGHT NOW. Both the men's and women's field lack real depth, and there is no one that can be considered a "marquee player" that would fill the seats in an auditorium. Sinner is a great player, but lacks charisma. Sabalenka is hardly a household name. At the YEC for the women, the championship round match attracted only 400 fans (Yes, 400!) to an auditorium that could seat 5,000. They actually darkened the lights so that no one could see how sparse the crowd was. Two more disturbing facts: 1. Fans are aging out as spectators, and not being replaced with "young, fresh blood". 2. 10% of the tennis courts have been changed to pickleball courts.
I think you are right about the future of tennis popularity. I play tennis, pickleball and ping pong still...at 70, and pickleball is taking over in the USA. Paddel is popular in Latin America and Europe. I disagree about Sinner. He is a very likeable kid, with a sense of humor....humble champions can be charasmatic. There is a natural rivalry beginning with him and Alcatraz, who is also very likeable. I am told that the women's game is not as popular in the rest of the world as it is in the USA. Serena brought a lot of attention, so that was a big time. The fact that Eastern Europeans have dominated for so long might be thing as well. If someone from another continent exploded on the scene it might help....but there are so many sports now! I wonder if the younger generation, which has enough trouble with mental and physical health, and poverty, thanks to inflation, is even that interested......
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
Seems like the top 13 are locked and loaded b/c 13 players have 5+ Majors in the Open Era: (1) Serena: 23; (2) Graf: 22; (3T) Evert: 18; (3T): Navratilova: 18; (5) Court: 11; (6) Seles: 9; (7) BJK: 8; (8T) Goolagong: 7; (8T) Venus: 7; (8T) Henin: 7; (11T): Hingis: 5; (11T) Sharapova: 5; (11T) Świątek: 5.

For these 13 players, it's just about what order you have them in.

Then, for the two remaining spots, we have 4 players with 4 Majors: Mandlíková, ASV, Clijsters, and Osaka. Plus, we have 6 players with 3 Majors: Wade, Davenport, Capriati, Kerber, Barty, and Sabalenka.

I'm anticipating Sabalenka will soon add another 2 Majors, which would leave the 9 remaining players with 3 or 4 Majors fighting for that last spot.

See I don't consider Swiatek better than people like Mandlikova, Clijsters, Davenport at all, and possibly even people like ASV, Osaka, some of those others. I get she has 5 majors, but I think dropped into most eras she wins 0-2 in all honesty. The game today is deeper than ever, but very weak in terms of top end strength, especialy on her best surface where almost all her big wins come- clay. In no era does she win a lot of big titles off clay, heck she probably won't even in this one. In fact most times 0. But on clay? If she is in the era of Henin, or Evert, or prime Graf/ prime Seles/prime ASV she might reach 2 French Opens max, and 0 isn't even impossible. Even in the era Serena and Sharapova won all their French Opens it might well be 0-2, since while that wasn't a strong clay era by any stretch either, I see Serena and Maria constantly beating her in final rounds of the French, even on clay, along with a few others who can beat her. And outside of clay she isn't even a consideration, this crazy wide open period is the only one she would ever win a US Open on, or come close anywhere but the French.

And I think Swiatek, Osaka, Barty, Kerber, Sabalenka, this all applies too. I am not sure if any of those have as much success in anything but the wild, wide open, total lack of any sort of dominant player at top game. Osaka having the best chance of those to do well in alternate time, but probably none of those others.

Even compare Swiatek to someone like ASV, who I think is one of the luckiest pre "alphabet soup" era for the women. ASV was lucky with the Seles stabbing, plus all the injuries and slumps of other top players post 92. Still even she played in a time of far more order at the top ranks than Swiatek, and was infinitely more consistent across all surfaces than Swiatek, and I think even on clay I have a hard time seeing Swiatek winning in a series of matches vs her. Clay being Swiatek's own best surface by far, probably by an even bigger margin than the so called clay specialist Sanchez Vicario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

BTURNER

Legend
The 'big picture' point has yet to be spelled out. It's the priorities of the entire 'tour' that drove this train over the decades and properly so. Women's tennis needed to compete with other sports, for fan loyalty, sponsorship dollars, space in your local park or high school or university, television revenue etc. Its a cutthroat market out there and the future over the next two decades depended on what was prioritized long before, and those strategic decisions changed as the needs changed. What the tour most needed in 1970, and what it most needed in 1980, or 2010 has differ. In 1970 it needed quick infusions of cash through sponsorship for economic viability and to establish its legitimacy and cred as a sport. Five years later, it needed maximum visibility locally, broaden the sport's access to coaching and development programs and incentivize young girls playing. We needed more tournaments and WTT. Five years later, it needed ratings because more of its income and sponsorship was coming from television than tickets, and we were beginning to see cable television divide the television pie, while providing more networks on which tennis coverage depended. We needed more stars to draw an audience than just one or two (the Chris -Martina show).

Five years later, we had too many tournaments, and not enough money, sponsorship or public interest to support them. Consolidation around the 'slams' became vital as a focal point of competition.

My point is that we talk a lot about the players driving this train, through their decisions on which events to play, when in fact it was driven by incentives and disincentives provided by the WTA, the television networks and the sponsorship and advertising deals on which they depended. We need to follow the money, but not just the money the winner and runner up make on the final day of play. We need to follow the money, women could acquire from the third round to the QFs, because that is what they were living off of, and that is the best most could aspire to. We need look local at local sponsorship deals, local coverage, as much as national sponsorship deals. That's the cash the broad spectrum of women were using to pay their coaches, and travel on, and repay any loans to keep going.
 

buscemi

Legend
See I don't consider Swiatek better than people like Mandlikova, Clijsters, Davenport at all, and possibly even people like ASV, Osaka, some of those others. I get she has 5 majors, but I think dropped into most eras she wins 0-2 in all honesty. The game today is deeper than ever, but very weak in terms of top end strength, especialy on her best surface where almost all her big wins come- clay. In no era does she win a lot of big titles off clay, heck she probably won't even in this one. In fact most times 0. But on clay? If she is in the era of Henin, or Evert, or prime Graf/ prime Seles/prime ASV she might reach 2 French Opens max, and 0 isn't even impossible. Even in the era Serena and Sharapova won all their French Opens it might well be 0-2, since while that wasn't a strong clay era by any stretch either, I see Serena and Maria constantly beating her in final rounds of the French, even on clay, along with a few others who can beat her. And outside of clay she isn't even a consideration, this crazy wide open period is the only one she would ever win a US Open on, or come close anywhere but the French.

And I think Swiatek, Osaka, Barty, Kerber, Sabalenka, this all applies too. I am not sure if any of those have as much success in anything but the wild, wide open, total lack of any sort of dominant player at top game. Osaka having the best chance of those to do well in alternate time, but probably none of those others.

Even compare Swiatek to someone like ASV, who I think is one of the luckiest pre "alphabet soup" era for the women. ASV was lucky with the Seles stabbing, plus all the injuries and slumps of other top players post 92. Still even she played in a time of far more order at the top ranks than Swiatek, and was infinitely more consistent across all surfaces than Swiatek, and I think even on clay I have a hard time seeing Swiatek winning in a series of matches vs her. Clay being Swiatek's own best surface by far, probably by an even bigger margin than the so called clay specialist Sanchez Vicario.
Yeah, I think this captures the dynamic really well. The game is definitely deeper now, but with a big vacuum at the top (exacerbated by Barty's early retirement). I suspect Świątek will add to her haul, but you're right that there's a solid argument she still has some work to do to make this list.
 
on clay? If she is in the era of Henin, or Evert, or prime Graf/ prime Seles/prime ASV she might reach 2 French Opens max, and 0 isn't even impossible. Even in the era Serena and Sharapova won all their French Opens it might well be 0-2, since while that wasn't a strong clay era by any stretch either, I see Serena and Maria constantly beating her in final rounds of the French, even on clay, along with a few others who can beat her.
just want to be clear here that we're talking about Swiatek on clay... someone who in 4 winning runs, dropped a whopping 3 sets against peaking versions of Zheng ('22), Muchova ('23), and Osaka ('24) indoors...

for comparison:
  • Sharapova lost a set to Koukalova in '12, and sets to Stosur, Muguruza, Bouchard, and Halep in '14
  • Serena lost sets to Zvonareva and Capriati in '02; Kuznetsova in '13; and Friedsam, Azarenka, Stephens, Bacsinszky, and Safarova in '15
  • Henin lost sets to Schnyder and Serena in '03; Martinez, Garrigues, and Kuznetsova in '05; and didn't lose sets in her '06 and '07 runs
  • ASV lost sets to Medvedeva and Graf in '89; Serena, Schnyder, and Seles in '98; and didn't lose a set in her '94 run
  • Seles lost sets to Kelesi and Manuela Maleeva in '90; Cecchini in '91; and Kijimuta, Sabatini, and Graf in '92
in terms of games won %:
Swiatek won 75.0, 73.4, 69.7, and 70.2% of her games in her 4 RG runs. Graf in her '88 run won 81.0% of her games... ... Henin in her 4 RG runs won 66.2, 63.6, 68.8, and 69.1% of her games.
Seles in her '91 run was 72.1%; Serena in '02 was 68.4% and in '13 was 75.0%; Sharapova in '12 was 72.6%; Evert was 70.5% in '74 and '75, 73.1% in '79, and 66.0% in '85; ASV was 70.2% in '94; Court was 65.3% in '62, 66.1% in '69, and 70.3% in '70; Navratilova was 74.0% in '82 and 74.4% in '84

after accounting for the competition and playstyles of the OE multi-RG-champs (+ Court's earlier RGs), i would argue their ceilings and floors should be ranked as follows:

ceiling: 1. Graf, 2. Evert, 3. Swiatek, 4. Seles, 5. Henin, 6. Navratilova, 7. Serena, 8. ASV, 9. Court, 10. Sharapova
floor: 1. Evert, 2. ASV, 3. Seles, 4. Graf, 5. Swiatek, 6. Henin, 7. Court, 8. Serena, 9. Navratilova, 10. Sharapova

so i'm not sure where you get this view of Swiatek as someone who Serena and Sharapova would be "constantly beating," let alone someone who would lose to the remaining competition in those years... really not sure how Swiatek isn't clearly around the level of Seles and Henin on clay, that too while possessing certain clear advantages over each of them (movement and forehand respectively) to make up for her relative disadvantages in terms of rally tolerance and variety...

especially funny when you've got quotes like these:

I would definitely expect Graf or pretty much any other all time great, even Seles for that matter, to win the vast majority of matches with Sharapova prime to prime. Virtually every other top player of Maria's era, even ones who are not all time greats, and some who are less successful record wise than her did. Henin, Serena, Mauresmo, Azarenka, Clijsters, all have clear winning records over her.

Well even her [Sharapova's] peak never produced even semi dominant results for a period. It never produced a semi dominant streak at any event or any surface.
Maria only won French Opens due to the atrocious clay field for a few years she got super lucky to coincide her clay peak with.

Serena's clay "peak" (if you consider that to be 2002) is still far behind Graf or 84 Navratilova. Despite that I would rank Serena higher than Navratilova on clay overall, there is never a period Serena produced on clay close to Navratilova of the 84 clay season. Even in her Roland Garros win she was lucky to not lose in straight sets to Capriati who was close to winning the 2nd set, after already winning the 1st, and played nobody else noteworthy. Venus, not a particularly formidable clay courter, was in her only RG final, and all but gave Serena the match as it had been forever since Serena won a slam at that point, pathetically taking pictures after the match showing how not into the match she was. The rest of her draw was a joke. Justine Henin won her only clay meeting with Serena that year. Patty Schnyder beat her this year.
Sanchez is clearly a superior clay courter to Capriati who as I mentioned Serena nearly lost to at RG 2002, with Capriati not even playing particularly well that day to boot
Henin was nowhere near her prime level in 2002 btw so going 1-1 vs her on clay that year is hardly some mark of an amazing clay peak. If we consider 2002 and 2003 as Serena's clay peak, which makes sense as she was really no worse level wise in 2003 than 2002, she is 1-3 vs Henin on clay in that period, her own all time clay peak, atleast half of that with Henin clearly not in her prime.

And I think Swiatek, Osaka, Barty, Kerber, Sabalenka, this all applies too. I am not sure if any of those have as much success in anything but the wild, wide open, total lack of any sort of dominant player at top game. Osaka having the best chance of those to do well in alternate time, but probably none of those others.
Sabalenka and Swiatek have been the clearly dominant players in the game for the past 2/3 years and counting, where have you been? and in terms of hard court peak and time travel potential how are you picking specifically Osaka (while still being hesitant) while disqualifying Sabalenka and Barty?
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
I will put it simple terms. In the 5 year stretch Maria and Serena were constantly making RG finals and semis, they would beat Swiatek most times, even at the French, even on clay, their own worst surface (only arguably for Maria as she in fact has more RG titles than any other slam surprisingly). How do I know that? Oh yeah I happened to see them play a whole bunch of times, LOL!

And your quotes as some evidence of something is hilarious. First of all rightly pointing out ranking Seles's ranking when she had no timeline to even return and wasn't even certain to at all was ridiculous (which all the players agreed with me on, hence why 24 of 25 voted the only sane way, and something only dumb Seles fans complain about while everyone else laughs at them) somehow in anyway relates to my downplaying Swiatek's clay and overall greatness vs anyone being discussed? Well there isn't a Rosetta Stone that could ever put that leap in logic together. The fact that I rightly point out Maria failed in being a dominant player ever, not even for brief periods like Venus, Hingis, Henin, and that impacting how she should be ranked in comparision to such players, somehow relates to Swiatek being clearly inferior to her? Peak TW logic at its best. Again will put it in simple terms even you can understand. Venus, Henin, Hingis >> Maria beyond any doubt, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise or even attempt to make some case of Maria being next best behind Serena of her era, and Maria >>>>> Swiatek beyond any doubt. Thanks for playing.

PS- have to love trying to compare ratios of games and other stats for Seles who faced Graf, ASV, Sabatini, Martinez, Pierce, and the deepest clay field in history vs Swiatek who plays people you never heard of or who don't even like clay in the semis and finals of RG most times. Or dumping on ASV for losing sets to people like Graf, Seles, Serena in her titles, when Swiatek was never even stepping on court with players even close to that level at RG. And the fact you rate Graf as the highest ceiling ever at RG with all the problems she had with all of Evert, Seles and ASV, with her getting massacred in one of her peak years by Pierce, and while her nearly losing at every RG she won apart from 88. Let me guess, since it is clear you don't regard competition even a little bit, that is all because of her 6-0 6-0, 32 minute over the clay court legend Natalia Zvereva in her only ever slam final right? Gotcha. Atleast you rated Graf's RG peak clearly above Swiatek though, that part is true anyway.
 
Last edited:
The 'big picture' point has yet to be spelled out. It's the priorities of the entire 'tour' that drove this train over the decades and properly so. Women's tennis needed to compete with other sports, for fan loyalty, sponsorship dollars, space in your local park or high school or university, television revenue etc. Its a cutthroat market out there and the future over the next two decades depended on what was prioritized long before, and those strategic decisions changed as the needs changed. What the tour most needed in 1970, and what it most needed in 1980, or 2010 has differ. In 1970 it needed quick infusions of cash through sponsorship for economic viability and to establish its legitimacy and cred as a sport. Five years later, it needed maximum visibility locally, broaden the sport's access to coaching and development programs and incentivize young girls playing. We needed more tournaments and WTT. Five years later, it needed ratings because more of its income and sponsorship was coming from television than tickets, and we were beginning to see cable television divide the television pie, while providing more networks on which tennis coverage depended. We needed more stars to draw an audience than just one or two (the Chris -Martina show).

Five years later, we had too many tournaments, and not enough money, sponsorship or public interest to support them. Consolidation around the 'slams' became vital as a focal point of competition.

My point is that we talk a lot about the players driving this train, through their decisions on which events to play, when in fact it was driven by incentives and disincentives provided by the WTA, the television networks and the sponsorship and advertising deals on which they depended. We need to follow the money, but not just the money the winner and runner up make on the final day of play. We need to follow the money, women could acquire from the third round to the QFs, because that is what they were living off of, and that is the best most could aspire to. We need look local at local sponsorship deals, local coverage, as much as national sponsorship deals. That's the cash the broad spectrum of women were using to pay their coaches, and travel on, and repay any loans to keep going.
What a FANTASTIC post! Tennis is not in a good place right now. With the retirement of Serena, Roger, Rafa, Murray (and probably Djokovic), the sport is absolutely starving for marquee players that will draw fans to their television sets and in the seats at tournaments. Sinner is a great player, but really does not draw new fans to the sport. The only possible "marquee" player I see right now is Alcaraz, and his results have been inconsistent lately. The woman have it worse. Sabalenka is #1, but does not really draw fans in. At the WTA Championships in Saudi Arabia last year, the women's championship match drew only 400 (yes, you read that right...400!) fans to an arena that held 5,000. The place was so empty that they actually darkened the arena so that people could not see the spectators. Tennis fans are aging out, and no new blood is coming in. Also ominous is the fact that 10% of the tennis courts have been converted to pickleball courts.
 
The Slams meant little before the late 70s. Players skipped Oz and Roland Garros consistently. They have much more weight now, but we shouldn't punish players from the era when they were not of importance. As an example, Billie Jean was not allowed by the US(L)TA to play Roland Garros until 1967, after she had been #1 in the world for over a year. She also didn't play there from 1973-1979, 1981 and 1983 for various reasons (such as injuries and World Team Tennis). She didn't play Oz until 1965, and skipped the event in 1966-1967 and 1970-1981. (choosing instead, like most other top players, to play on the concurrently running Virginia Slims circuit). She also missed the United States Championships in 1970, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981 and 1983 (due to brief flirtations with retirement as well as injuries).
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
The Slams meant little before the late 70s. Players skipped Oz and Roland Garros consistently. They have much more weight now, but we shouldn't punish players from the era when they were not of importance. As an example, Billie Jean was not allowed by the US(L)TA to play Roland Garros until 1967, after she had been #1 in the world for over a year. She also didn't play there from 1973-1979, 1981 and 1983 for various reasons (such as injuries and World Team Tennis). She didn't play Oz until 1965, and skipped the event in 1966-1967 and 1970-1981. (choosing instead, like most other top players, to play on the concurrently running Virginia Slims circuit). She also missed the United States Championships in 1970, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981 and 1983 (due to brief flirtations with retirement as well as injuries).
Exactly. There is a reason nobody regards Court as the GOAT, despite that she holds virtually all the womens records. And King is considered somewhat close to her despite that she has only half as many slams. Any semi serious tennis fan understands the context of the game back then.
 
Exactly. There is a reason nobody regards Court as the GOAT, despite that she holds virtually all the womens records. And King is considered somewhat close to her despite that she has only half as many slams. Any semi serious tennis fan understands the context of the game back then.
Billie Jean and Margaret's career head to head record is also misleading (21-13 in Margaret's favor). Here are the facts: Billie Jean won their first meeting at Wimbledon in 1962 by 1/6,6/3,7/5. Margaret then won their next nine meetings without the loss of a set. In their last 24 meetings, they were dead even at 12-12.
 
In the 5 year stretch Maria and Serena were constantly making RG finals and semis, they would beat Swiatek most times, even at the French, even on clay, their own worst surface (only arguably for Maria as she in fact has more RG titles than any other slam surprisingly). How do I know that? Oh yeah I happened to see them play a whole bunch of times, LOL!
and my eye test says otherwise based on strokes and movement, ah well
First of all rightly pointing out ranking Seles's ranking when she had no timeline to even return and wasn't even certain to at all was ridiculous (which all the players agreed with me on, hence why 24 of 25 voted the only sane way, and something only dumb Seles fans complain about while everyone else laughs at them) somehow in anyway relates to my downplaying Swiatek's clay and overall greatness vs anyone being discussed? Well there isn't a Rosetta Stone that could ever put that leap in logic together.
the post link was to provide a source for your quote about Sharapova getting bullied in h2hs. the link preview of your comment (as the first on that page) was not intentionally included and not relevant
trying to compare ratios of games and other stats for Seles who faced Graf, ASV, Sabatini, Martinez, Pierce, and the deepest clay field in history
here's the thing: i didn't try to explicitly compare those stats. i just wanted to give some historical context for what Swiatek has been doing on clay and establish that her stats (even with however weak her fields have been) are near the top of the range for other great clay players (who themselves usually got similar stats in years of relatively weaker competition), so at minimum she's not a scrub to be so easily dismissed. (also i wanted the stats to be out somewhere because i haven't seen anybody mention them) that's why i dumped all those stats and moved on to my subjective evaluation (which was always going to be opaque and endlessly arguable anyway so i didn't bother explaining every decision). i didn't put Swiatek's ceiling over Seles on clay because of her game w/l; i did it because i think at Swiatek's best she wouldn't be outdone in terms of weight of shot, clean ballstriking, angle creation, or direction changing, and her footwork and movement would give her more options, especially on defense. e.g. in that '91 final against ASV, i think Seles was forced to defend, and then couldn't quite manage counterpunching at times, things i think Swiatek would have done better. i don't really have a problem with people putting both Seles and Henin over her (for ceiling or overall on clay); my issue is when people act like Swiatek, a very natural and dominant clay courter, would be getting low diffed by Serena and Sharapova on clay, after hearing for the past twenty years that those latter two's clay achievements and games are fraudulent
Or dumping on ASV for losing sets to people like Graf, Seles, Serena in her titles
the fact you rate Graf as the highest ceiling ever at RG with all the problems she had with all of Evert, Seles and ASV, with her getting massacred in one of her peak years by Pierce, and while her nearly losing at every RG she won apart from 88
no dumping happening. i'm perfectly happy to rate ASV's peak above (at least) Navratilova and Serena too, and with the same reasoning move Graf's peak lower than Evert and Seles. i just chose to align my peak list with the common understanding of peak (which would put the likes of Pierce quite high), rather than a clay-specific peak that highly values consistency (within a particular year/tournament/match timespan and no longer). specifically, i think if/when Graf's forehand, movement, and return were on, she would be/was more unstoppable against all opponents than anyone else. that being said, i think the bolded phrase has more to do with Graf's floor than her ceiling, and the easy confusion with the two does support my hot take that trying to determine peaks on clay is a futile and nearly pointless endeavor
 
Last edited:

Kiam

Rookie
See I don't consider Swiatek better than people like Mandlikova, Clijsters, Davenport at all, and possibly even people like ASV, Osaka, some of those others. I get she has 5 majors, but I think dropped into most eras she wins 0-2 in all honesty. The game today is deeper than ever, but very weak in terms of top end strength, especialy on her best surface where almost all her big wins come- clay. In no era does she win a lot of big titles off clay, heck she probably won't even in this one. In fact most times 0. But on clay? If she is in the era of Henin, or Evert, or prime Graf/ prime Seles/prime ASV she might reach 2 French Opens max, and 0 isn't even impossible. Even in the era Serena and Sharapova won all their French Opens it might well be 0-2, since while that wasn't a strong clay era by any stretch either, I see Serena and Maria constantly beating her in final rounds of the French, even on clay, along with a few others who can beat her. And outside of clay she isn't even a consideration, this crazy wide open period is the only one she would ever win a US Open on, or come close anywhere but the French.

And I think Swiatek, Osaka, Barty, Kerber, Sabalenka, this all applies too. I am not sure if any of those have as much success in anything but the wild, wide open, total lack of any sort of dominant player at top game. Osaka having the best chance of those to do well in alternate time, but probably none of those others.

Even compare Swiatek to someone like ASV, who I think is one of the luckiest pre "alphabet soup" era for the women. ASV was lucky with the Seles stabbing, plus all the injuries and slumps of other top players post 92. Still even she played in a time of far more order at the top ranks than Swiatek, and was infinitely more consistent across all surfaces than Swiatek, and I think even on clay I have a hard time seeing Swiatek winning in a series of matches vs her. Clay being Swiatek's own best surface by far, probably by an even bigger margin than the so called clay specialist Sanchez Vicario.
This obsession with slam wins in ranking people is silly. Especially with the women. Since they play 3 sets every match, and are trying their best to win all the time. Sure, the slams are the biggest prize, but other matches count as well. And thinking today's players are weaker than those of 23 years ago is debatable, at best. I have the opposite opinion, for instance. But here are some criteria which should be considered: Career wins, career winning percentage, tournament wins, slam finals, slam semifinals. Early eliminations, weeks at number one. Weeks at number one two or three. Be objective: how did the player do against the best competition of her time?
Davenport should be nearer to the top based on her 54 career titles, and her performance at big tournaments. Swiatek is a GREAT player, but she has a lot further to go to catch up to the top girls.
 
Slams were not important to most players until the late 70s. Before then it was commonplace for players to skip Oz and Roland Garros. I agree with you about the players from yesteryear(s) having stronger fields than the player's of today. There is no player on the women's side that I see as a future Evert, King, Court, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, etc... Everyone plays at the same level and can be beaten on a given day, because they all play just about the same, unlike years past. I also agree about career wins, tournament titles (singles AND doubles, or just singles?). I don't agree, however, about the computer rankings, because they were not established until 1974, when Chrissie was #1. People always say that she never fell below #4 in the computer rankings like it is some amazing record, but the reason for that is because there were no computer rankings until then. If there were, she would have had to have "climbed the ladder" in terms of her computer rankings to achieve the #1 status, as the players thereafter have had to do.
 

Kiam

Rookie
Slams were not important to most players until the late 70s. Before then it was commonplace for players to skip Oz and Roland Garros. I agree with you about the players from yesteryear(s) having stronger fields than the player's of today. There is no player on the women's side that I see as a future Evert, King, Court, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, etc... Everyone plays at the same level and can be beaten on a given day, because they all play just about the same, unlike years past. I also agree about career wins, tournament titles (singles AND doubles, or just singles?). I don't agree, however, about the computer rankings, because they were not established until 1974, when Chrissie was #1. People always say that she never fell below #4 in the computer rankings like it is some amazing record, but the reason for that is because there were no computer rankings until then. If there were, she would have had to have "climbed the ladder" in terms of her computer rankings to achieve the #1 status, as the players thereafter have had to do.
There is no dominant player today because they are all so GOOD. It's much more difficult to dominate today's hard-hitting, super-fit athletes than it was in the 70s-mid-90s. Too bad Barty quit. She WAS on another level. I think the computer ranking are an excellent judge of exxcellence for the years they existed/ For Court, Evert, and King, other metics need to be used in the years there was no computer. But they all know how the points are tallied, and it's a fair game with that ranking system. If you spend more than 370 weeks at number one, like Graf did, you were the definition of dominance. Of course, the Seles situation should be included in THAT discussion.....
 

Galvermegs

Professional
There is no dominant player today because they are all so GOOD. It's much more difficult to dominate today's hard-hitting, super-fit athletes than it was in the 70s-mid-90s. Too bad Barty quit. She WAS on another level. I think the computer ranking are an excellent judge of exxcellence for the years they existed/ For Court, Evert, and King, other metics need to be used in the years there was no computer. But they all know how the points are tallied, and it's a fair game with that ranking system. If you spend more than 370 weeks at number one, like Graf did, you were the definition of dominance. Of course, the Seles situation should be included in THAT discussion.....
Barty did indeed quit as she lost motivation. Maybe she wouldnt even have the motiavation to overcome a lack of form or iga being strong for large portions of the season. I did like her game a lot although an henin style backhand would be ideal.
 

Kiam

Rookie
Barty did indeed quit as she lost motivation. Maybe she wouldnt even have the motiavation to overcome a lack of form or iga being strong for large portions of the season. I did like her game a lot although an henin style backhand would be ideal.
Ash played with variety and tactics....not just power. Fun to watch. Not as fun as Radwansks or Hsieh, who were real artistes.
 

Galvermegs

Professional
Ash played with variety and tactics....not just power. Fun to watch. Not as fun as Radwansks or Hsieh, who were real artistes.
There are others with variety but not the full assortment perhaps. Paolini has good hands but some power too, but doesnt get many easy wins in a row. Not sure she can back up 2024 but lets see.
 
There is no dominant player today because they are all so GOOD. It's much more difficult to dominate today's hard-hitting, super-fit athletes than it was in the 70s-mid-90s. Too bad Barty quit. She WAS on another level. I think the computer ranking are an excellent judge of exxcellence for the years they existed/ For Court, Evert, and King, other metics need to be used in the years there was no computer. But they all know how the points are tallied, and it's a fair game with that ranking system. If you spend more than 370 weeks at number one, like Graf did, you were the definition of dominance. Of course, the Seles situation should be included in THAT discussion.....
The women's field is in my opinion, average. Thanks to the change in racquet technology (not necessarily a good thing...you can hit way off of the sweet shot ground strokes and still be effective). In the wooden racquet era, the sweet spot was very small (as were the racquet heads themselves) and you had to generate your own power. If you hit the ball off center, you felt it reverberate in your elbow and wrist. Players today hit the ball harder than ever, but basically play almost the same game. Slam, bam from the baseline, with no thought. I miss the days of the serve and volley game vs. the baseliner. We are basically in agreement about the computer ranking situation. I make no qualms about the greatness of players with record weeks at #1, which you seem to assume I did. The players who have played when their entire careers had the computer ranking system deserve all of the accolades bestowed upon them. Prior to 1974, the tournaments themselves decided the seeding arrangement, which created some very controversial draws. A perfect example is a tournament that took place in 1972 in Dallas. Shenanigans by the seeding placed Billie Jean, Chrissie and Evonne in the same half, and only Nancy Richey being a player of significance in the bottom half. It was no accident that she was a Texan. Billie Jean beat Chrissie in the quarter finals 6/7,6/3,7/5, and Evonne in the semis 1/6,6/4,6/1. King was exhausted for the final, while Richey was fresh. Billie was easy pickings for Richey in the final, losing by 7/6,6/1. Situations such as this were the reason why the computer rankings were established.
 

Galvermegs

Professional
The women's field is in my opinion, average. Thanks to the change in racquet technology (not necessarily a good thing...you can hit way off of the sweet shot ground strokes and still be effective). In the wooden racquet era, the sweet spot was very small (as were the racquet heads themselves) and you had to generate your own power. If you hit the ball off center, you felt it reverberate in your elbow and wrist. Players today hit the ball harder than ever, but basically play almost the same game. Slam, bam from the baseline, with no thought. I miss the days of the serve and volley game vs. the baseliner. We are basically in agreement about the computer ranking situation. I make no qualms about the greatness of players with record weeks at #1, which you seem to assume I did. The players who have played when their entire careers had the computer ranking system deserve all of the accolades bestowed upon them. Prior to 1974, the tournaments themselves decided the seeding arrangement, which created some very controversial draws. A perfect example is a tournament that took place in 1972 in Dallas. Shenanigans by the seeding placed Billie Jean, Chrissie and Evonne in the same half, and only Nancy Richey being a player of significance in the bottom half. It was no accident that she was a Texan. Billie Jean beat Chrissie in the quarter finals 6/7,6/3,7/5, and Evonne in the semis 1/6,6/4,6/1. King was exhausted for the final, while Richey was fresh. Billie was easy pickings for Richey in the final, losing by 7/6,6/1. Situations such as this were the reason why the computer rankings were established.
So what do you make of vilas and connors getting ranked a certain way in the 70s? Could be argued that wasnt totally appropriate. I know im straying into atp land. Also safina and jankovic were controversial no1s. Wozniacki came good of course.
 
I'm really just concentrating on the women right now. The computer rankings do have flaws. Players who have never won a Grand Slam title being #1? I think not. Nothing is 100% infallible, but is 100% better than the old way, in which each individual tournament decided the seeding and the draw, often based on personal preferences.
 
Top