Women's Best of the Present and All Time Greats - who is who?

Adam Copeland

Hall of Fame
hahaha-no-haha-no.gif

23 is mathematically highest for anyone who career entirely fell in the open era ;)

This is the Open Era Top 5 According to me :

Rank 1

f5e45d716015d86dcce4ae14fc4ecfc6.jpg


Rank 2

2862.jpg


Rank 3


5a125ac5ec90b3f4a55a5784b8efb6f4.jpg


Rank 4 :

EjK93QhXYAYYyde.jpg


Rank 5 :

be5c3162eace5374c56868784c0e6f67--monica-seles-tennis-online.jpg
 

FedrMatt

Professional
23 is mathematically highest for anyone who career entirely fell in the open era ;)

This is the Open Era Top 5 According to me :

Rank 1

f5e45d716015d86dcce4ae14fc4ecfc6.jpg


Rank 2

2862.jpg


Rank 3


5a125ac5ec90b3f4a55a5784b8efb6f4.jpg


Rank 4 :

EjK93QhXYAYYyde.jpg


Rank 5 :

be5c3162eace5374c56868784c0e6f67--monica-seles-tennis-online.jpg

Except Serena sucks (especially as a person), Margaret Court has more slams and titles, and Steffi has the golden slam.
 

Adam Copeland

Hall of Fame
Except Serena sucks (especially as a person), Margaret Court has more slams and titles, and Steffi has the golden slam.

Personal behaviors are off court things, on court only performance matters.

Serena has the greatest longevity in the open era between her 1st and last slam, she is the Phenom.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Yes, for her to have an argument she at least needs to have won more slams than Serena/Navratilova, and won a calendar slam. Oh wait!
Spot on. People here are so funny with their Court hate, putting her not even as an ATG. Instead of just admitting that they try to undermine her on court achievements because they don’t like her views those clueless folks repeat like a broken record that she faced weak competition at the AO deliberately ignoring that she won a CYGS and holds countless other records. It does not matter anyways she could only play who was in front of her and would have won most of those AOs anyways regardless of competition.
 

skaj

Legend
Again, you're assuming I give a rats *** about the slam totals of 2 handers vs single handers. If there was no attack, and Steffi was limited to 18 majors, it'd still be a greater accomplishment than Serena's 23-- considering she did it w/ one hand tied behind her back. Then there's the Golden Calendar Year Grand Slam. That, plus 18 slams would even put her above Williams by a mile. It took Steffi less time to get to 22, to boot. Like a decade.

Always use Parchement paper when baking.

You are the one who is assuming(about my assumption), my post was just pointing that out.

I didn't know that Graf played with one hand tied behind her back, I must have missed those matches(although I saw most of her slam finals).

Serena also has a golden slam, just not a calendar one, not a big difference when we are talking about accomplishments. Plus she has more slams, plus her main rival was not stabbed.

And yes, we should just ignore the Parche fact, to keep the grafanatics happy...
 

anarosevoli

Semi-Pro
Lol still some people putting Williams at number one, the only one who has nothing at all! Graf has Golden Slam, number one record, most career slams, much better w/l, more titles, Navratilova won SIX in a row (but people talking about "Serena Slam" which Graf also had but wasn't even being mentioned because she already won the real one - now they will say Graf was lucky that Vinci wasn't around in 1988 lol), Navratilova has the Wimbledon record, Court has the slam record. Williams had the longest career and won the least. She can be thankful that Henin retired early, otherwise she would have even less.
 

skaj

Legend
Lol still some people putting Williams at number one, the only one who has nothing at all! Graf has Golden Slam, number one record, most career slams, much better w/l, more titles, Navratilova won SIX in a row (but people talking about "Serena Slam" which Graf also had but wasn't even being mentioned because she already won the real one - now they will say Graf was lucky that Vinci wasn't around in 1988 lol), Navratilova has the Wimbledon record, Court has the slam record. Williams had the longest career and won the least. She can be thankful that Henin retired early, otherwise she would have even less.

Serena did not win the least, she won the most big titles in the Open Era. The most important number, if you consider the context(something you've never heard of obviously). She also has a golden slam, and has won 4 slams in a row twice, just not in calendar years, which is irrelevant. More importantly, her main rival was not stabbed, she had the toughest competition of them all.
By the way, Henin came back - and lost.
 
Last edited:

anarosevoli

Semi-Pro
Serena did not win the least, he won the most big titles in the Open Era. The most important number, if you consider the context(something you've never heard of obviously). She also has a golden slam, and has won 4 slams in a row twice, just not in calendar years, which is irrelevant. More importantly, her main rival was not stabbed, she had the toughest competition of them all.
By the way, Henin came back - and lost.
You appear a bit ******** with such funny statements.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Serena did not win the least, he won the most big titles in the Open Era. The most important number, if you consider the context(something you've never heard of obviously). She also has a golden slam, and has won 4 slams in a row twice, just not in calendar years, which is irrelevant. More importantly, her main rival was not stabbed, she had the toughest competition of them all.
By the way, Henin came back - and lost.
And what a beautiful thing it was to witness. :D
 

anarosevoli

Semi-Pro
I don't know what ******** is, but 4 in a row in a calendar year which is an arbitrary period or outside of it is - irrelevant. Same goes for a golden slam.
I guess that's why nobody ever talks about Navratilova's 6 in a row but everybody talks about Graf's Golden Slam or Djokovic's chance to win the Grand Slam (when he already had 4 in a row) and things like year end number one. Funny Williams fan boy wihtout a brain...
 

Adam Copeland

Hall of Fame
Navratilova was and will ever be beneath Graf. Its the reason Narvatilova has spent years--while being a commentator--bitterly sniping at Graf and her superior records. She acknowledged a record she never had the ability to match or surpass.

Navratilova is superior to Graf for 2 reasons :

01. Navratilova at her peak never had any rivals who owned her, unlike Graf who struggled a lot of Monica Seles.
02. Navratilova at her peak in singles was also a champion doubles player, can't say the same the about Graf. Now don't say that doubles don't have any bearing on GOAT, it does when we are discussing at the highest level as to how good a tennis player's co ordination was on court at her peak with other teammates in a team match, this also matters.
 

anarosevoli

Semi-Pro
Navratilova is superior to Graf for 2 reasons :

01. Navratilova at her peak never had any rivals who owned her, unlike Graf who struggled a lot of Monica Seles.
02. Navratilova at her peak in singles was also a champion doubles player, can't say the same the about Graf. Now don't say that doubles don't have any bearing on GOAT, it does when we are discussing at the highest level as to how good a tennis player's co ordination was on court at her peak with other teammates in a team match, this also matters.
... and Graf is superior to Navratilova for 15 reasons.

But that doesn't help, there are a lot of facts speaking for each of them, personally I put Graf on top. Overall titles, Wimbledon record, 6 in a row, and doubles achievements make it very tight though. The problem is when people and media start putting a player like Williams on top because of recency bias and other questionable motivations, fooling those who don't check the statistics.
 
Last edited:

Adam Copeland

Hall of Fame
... and Graf is superior to Navratilova for 15 reasons.

Why is their H2H 9-9 ?

A past her prime Navratilova could level the H2H with a youngsters at her peak, imagine what a peak Navratilova would do ?

13 years age gap and still Graf cannot go 1 up on the H2H ?

There is nothing to argue, Navratilova is the greatest of the 20th century before power tennis came into play and Serena is the greatest of this century.

Graf could not even take on Seles when the "teenager" was at her peak, half of Graf's resume is post the stabbing, in an ideal world Graf would be on 15-16 slams at best, she isn't as good as Martina, the H2H exposes her clearly.
 

Adam Copeland

Hall of Fame
Infact 13 years older Navratilova leads Graf 5-4 in Slams H2H

You are telling me that peak to peak Graf is better ? :D

LOL

Cmon ....

Martina and Serena are the Ultimate Champions, we all know it, deep down even you know it ;)
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
I don't know what ******** is, but 4 in a row in a calendar year which is an arbitrary period or outside of it is - irrelevant. Same goes for a golden slam.

How come nobody knows this? They should stop talking about Budge, Laver , Connolly etc as grand slammers. People need to be told it’s irrelevant otherwise how will we know?
 

skaj

Legend
I guess that's why nobody ever talks about Navratilova's 6 in a row but everybody talks about Graf's Golden Slam or Djokovic's chance to win the Grand Slam (when he already had 4 in a row) and things like year end number one. Funny Williams fan boy wihtout a brain...

Speaking of brains, masses and fanboys, I guess that Kim Kardashian is more important person than Noam Chomsky, since everyone talks about her and no one talks about him...
 

skaj

Legend
How come nobody knows this? They should stop talking about Budge, Laver , Connolly etc as grand slammers. People need to be told it’s irrelevant otherwise how will we know?

That calendars are arbitrary and differ from culture to culture? Lack of knowledge or lack of intelligence I guess.

I agree, people need to be told, that is why I wrote it - so that you who don't know it find out about it. You are welcome.
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
That calendars are arbitrary and differ from culture to culture? Lack of knowledge or lack of intelligence I guess.

I agree, people need to be told, that is why I wrote it - so that you who don't know it find out about it. You are welcome.

I’m serious. For all of tennis history everyone thought Budge, Laver, Connolly etc were special and god-like because they won all the slams in 1 tennis season, which is as close to tennis perfection as you can get in terms of achievement. 1,000’s of books have been written about these greats, all experts and great players fawned over them etc, when all along there was nothing to see here move along. Astounding insight. It just goes to show that a special individual - Einstein or yourself - can open insights no one ever considered before. You are a tennis genius. I’m going to go back and read all your posts - bet I learn a lot. Excited, can’t wait to see what else I can learn.
 

skaj

Legend
I’m serious. For all of tennis history everyone thought Budge, Laver, Connolly etc were special and god-like because they won all the slams in 1 tennis season, which is as close to tennis perfection as you can get in terms of achievement. 1,000’s of books have been written about these greats, all experts and great players fawned over them etc, when all along there was nothing to see here move along. Astounding insight. It just goes to show that a special individual - Einstein or yourself - can open insights no one ever considered before. You are a tennis genius. I’m going to go back and read all your posts - bet I learn a lot. Excited, can’t wait to see what else I can learn.

I am serious too. If you didn't get my last post you replied to, I suggest you read it again. If you (even after reading my posts still)think that masses are right and spectacle friendly ideas are true, then I am not sure I can help you here.
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
I am serious too. If you didn't get my last post you replied to, I suggest you read it again. If you (even after reading my posts still)think that masses are right and spectacle friendly ideas are true, then I am not sure I can help you here.

I believe. I’m just stunned the rest of humanity got it so wrong for so long. You are a bona fide genius. It’s a privilege to have you here.
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
I am serious too. If you didn't get my last post you replied to, I suggest you read it again.

I’m telling everyone about you and starting a campaign to expunge all tennis books from history as it’s fake news. Some have already said what am I talking about, so I said this guy on the internet told me and sent them links to your posts. I don’t want to steal the credit for exposing this hoax.
 

skaj

Legend
I believe. I’m just stunned the rest of humanity got it so wrong for so long. You are a bona fide genius. It’s a privilege to have you here.

No you didn't get it. It's not the rest of humanity, it's people who don't think to much, don't know much and who fall for sensationalism, which is unfortunately a majority. If they got the chance to at least read what I have written here, they would get it right, in this particular case. Of course, some people still won't get it, look at you for example.
 

skaj

Legend
I’m telling everyone about you and starting a campaign to expunge all tennis books from history as it’s fake news. Some have already said what am I talking about, so I said this guy on the internet told me and sent them links to your posts. I don’t want to steal the credit for exposing this hoax.

And all history books are saying what exactly? To get back to the subject, maybe it would be easier for you to understand it on examples.
Also, read my previous post.
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
No you didn't get it. It's not the rest of humanity, it's people who don't think to much, don't know much and who fall for sensationalism, which is unfortunately a majority. If they got the chance to at least read what I have written here, they would get it right, in this particular case. Of course, some people still won't get it, look at you for example.


But I agree with you. I now think nothing of Budge, Connolly etc and Laver gets zero credit from me for his calendar slams. Thanks for exposing this. Seems obvious now but nobody had a clue before.
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
And all history books are saying what exactly? To get back to the subject, maybe it would be easier for you to understand it on examples.
Also, read my previous post.

I just wish you told Serena before the 2015 USO that there is no pressure on the line. She was absolutely devastated, stormed off in tears and nobody saw her for months as she was depressed. Djoker as well was in tears during USO final as he knew he missed his chance at immortality, but little did he know it was all a hoax.
 

skaj

Legend
But I agree with you. I now think nothing of Budge, Connolly etc and Laver gets zero credit from me for his calendar slams. Thanks for exposing this. Seems obvious now but nobody had a clue before.

I didn't say you agree or not, I said that you didn't get it. I explained what you didn't get.
 

skaj

Legend
I just wish you told Serena before the 2015 USO that there is no pressure on the line. She was absolutely devastated, stormed off in tears and nobody saw her for months as she was depressed. Djoker as well was in tears during USO final as he knew he missed his chance at immortality, but little did he know it was all a hoax.

No, you still don't get it. It's not "a hoax" and nobody said it was, certainly not me.

I see that you don’t know the basics, so let’s start with that. Tennis is – entertainment. It is not science. Tennis writers are not scientists, they are sport people. Tennis books are about tennis which is entertainment, popular entertainment. It includes spectacle, drama, fun, so the opposite of reason and rational thought. It sounds good when you come up with something like The Grand Slam. In reality(pay attention, reality is not the world of tennis, the world of popular entertainment for the masses) 4 slams in a row is 4 slams in a row, within a certain calendar or not. Calendars depend on a culture, region. Serena for example also won a calendar slam, but tennis is originally and primarily western entertainment, so it’s stuck with the western calendar and western based Grand Slam concept, and she did not win The Grand Slam.

Most people with average intelligence, including tennis writers and commentators, and tennis people in general, including players, including Serena and Djokovic, would understand what I am saying, but they work and operate in the tennis world, the world of entertainment where there are already established concepts I have mentioned, the origin of which I have explained. Most of them don’t think beyond it, they work within that system, and don’t feel the need to go outside of it.

As for Serena and Djokovic and their torture, nice of you to think about their feelings, but I think that they have some unresolved issues that are the origin of their anger, so the Grand Slam or not they would have those anger problems anyway. It's probably something they have to solve at their therapist's, not by winning big, otherwise they would have solved it by now.
 

Fiero425

Legend
Navratilova is superior to Graf for 2 reasons :

01. Navratilova at her peak never had any rivals who owned her, unlike Graf who struggled a lot of Monica Seles.
02. Navratilova at her peak in singles was also a champion doubles player, can't say the same the about Graf. Now don't say that doubles don't have any bearing on GOAT, it does when we are discussing at the highest level as to how good a tennis player's co ordination was on court at her peak with other teammates in a team match, this also matters.

It begins and ends with Navratilova as far as I'm concerned as well! We can't just say her doubles record doesn't count toward her "owning" the Open Era with 59 Majors, winning 9 Wimbledons, 167 Single titles, 177 in doubles, taking 6 majors in a row over her closest rival, and spanned a career at the top from BJK and Evonne Goolagong to holding off the young 'uns Graf and Seles! Winning her last major at (1 month short of) 50 can't ever be surpassed!! Graf's record will always have an asterisk behind it due to Seles being stabbed! Serena just doesn't have the body of work coming and going; literally holding the women's tour hostage at times waiting for her to return after another extended, volutary absense! No other top pro ever did such a thing! How can she be thought the "GOAT" with half the record of Navratilova and Evert outside of Single Majors? Martina probably would have won more singles majors if she wasn't so busy playing into the night in doubles to the very end of her career! It had to of taken a toll on her mental and physical energy over 30 years! :whistle: :sneaky::giggle::happydevil:
 
Last edited:

Adam Copeland

Hall of Fame
It begins and ends with Navratilova as far as I'm concerned as well! We can't just say her doubles record doesn't count toward her "owning" the Open Era with 59 Majors, winning 9 Wimbledons, 167 Single titles, 177 in doubles, taking 6 majors in a row over her closest rival, and spanned a career at the top from BJK and Evonne Goolagong to holding off the young 'uns Graf and Seles! Winning her last major at (1 month short of) 50 can't ever be surpassed!! Graf's record will always have an asterisk behind it due to Seles being stabbed! Serena just doesn't have the body of work coming and going; literally holding the women's tour hostage at times waiting for her to return after another extended, volutary absense! No other top pro ever did such a thing! How can she be thought the "GOAT" with half the record of Navratilova and Evert outside of Single Majors? Martina probably would have won more singles majors if she wasn't so busy playing into the night in doubles to the very end of her career! It had to of taken a toll on her mental and physical energy over 30 years! :whistle: :sneaky::giggle::happydevil:

True, Navratilova is hands down the GOAT.
Serena is not even close in doubles and thats a big gap.
I just separated Serena because athleticism has gone up in the 21st century and Serena stands tall in the modern era, so she too stands out in her own with the numbers nd longevity.
But no doubt Navratilova at peak was quick with her hands, she is the GOAT if everything taken into account, all IFs and BUTs considered.
 
Last edited:

Whisper

Semi-Pro
I didn't say you agree or not, I said that you didn't get it. I explained what you didn't get.

You think winning 4 slams in a row over 2 years is the same level achievement as 4 in a row in the same tennis season. In 1 tennis season you have 1 chance to win the grand slam, ie the starting point is the AO. You have to win it to have a chance at calendar grand slam. If we’re looking at 4 slams in a row over 2 tennis seasons you actually have 5 chances to win it as all 4 slams in year 1 can be a starting point to win 4 in a row, and the 5th chance is the AO the following year. So statistically it’s far easier to win 4 in a row over 2 tennis seasons with 5 potential starting points, compared to only 1 starting point if you want to win all 4 in 1 tennis season. In your 2 year model it’s no big deal if you lose at AO, FO, Wim or USO as you can just start again at the very next slam.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
It begins and ends with Navratilova as far as I'm concerned as well! We can't just say her doubles record doesn't count toward her "owning" the Open Era with 59 Majors, winning 9 Wimbledons, 167 Single titles, 177 in doubles, taking 6 majors in a row over her closest rival, and spanned a career at the top from BJK and Evonne Goolagong to holding off the young 'uns Graf and Seles! Winning her last major at (1 month short of) 50 can't ever be surpassed!! Graf's record will always have an asterisk behind it due to Seles being stabbed! Serena just doesn't have the body of work coming and going; literally holding the women's tour hostage at times waiting for her to return after another extended, volutary absense! No other top pro ever did such a thing! How can she be thought the "GOAT" with half the record of Navratilova and Evert outside of Single Majors? Martina probably would have won more singles majors if she wasn't so busy playing into the night in doubles to the very end of her career! It had to of taken a toll on her mental and physical energy over 30 years! :whistle: :sneaky::giggle::happydevil:
You can definitely make a case for Navratilova. What I would like to add is that out of all the women we are talking here she is the only one who had to face another (borderline) GOAT candidate in Evert for almost all her career (on top of a young but already very good Graf towards the end). Neither Graf nor Court nor Serena had anything comparable.

I do think however, that this whole ‘Graf’s achievements should have an asterisk due to the Seles stabbing’ is blown way out of proportion here. She was 1-3 in their last 4 slam matches but overall still 6-4 even before the stabbing, as good as Monica was that was still not a Federer-Nadal situation as many here claim.

Would Graf have won fewer slams with a healthy Monica around? Sure, but this holds true for every player if you throw another ATG in one of her best slam winning periods. Would that have reduced Graf to a 15 slam winner? Hell no.
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
I do think however, that this whole ‘Graf’s achievements should have an asterisk due to the Seles stabbing’ is blown way out of proportion here. She was 1-3 in their last 4 slam matches but overall still 6-4 even before the stabbing, as good as Monica was that was still not a Federer-Nadal situation as many here claim.

Nobody takes those claims seriously, it’s just Graf haters and Seles fanboys nonsense. Graf won golden grand slam 5 years before Seles was stabbed. That on its own makes her a tier 1 goat. Seles never beat Graf at Wimbledon or USO. In fact if Seles lost that 1992 FO final to Graf Seles would have no claims at all to being a challenger for Graf. That match went to Seles 10-8 in the 3rd set. In the Wimbledon final a few later Graf creamed Seles 62 61, so if she also won FO final v Seles how could you make a claim for Seles? Like I said it’s only Graf haters who post this stuff Lol : )
 

timnz

Legend
1960 Australian Championships
Draw Size: 32 players
Non-Australian Entrants: 2
Non-Australian Seeds: 2 (out of 8)
Matches won for title: 5

1961 Australian Championships
Draw Size: 44
Non-Australian Entrants: 1
Non-Australian Seeds: 0 (out of 8)
Matches won for title: 5

1962 Australian Championships
Draw Size: 48
Non-Australian Entrants: 3
Non-Australian Seeds: 2 (out of 16)
Matches won for title: 5

1963 Australian Championships
Draw Size: 39
Non-Australian Entrants: 3
Non-Australian Seeds: 3 (out of 8)
Matches won for title: 5

1964 Australian Championships
Draw Size: 27
Non-Australian Entrants: 2
Non-Australian Seeds: 1 (out of 8)
Matches won for title: 4

1965 Australian Championships
Draw Size: 52
Non-Australian Entrants: 24
Non-Australian Seeds: 8 (out of 16)
Matches won for title: 5

1966 Australian Championships
Draw Size: 48
Non-Australian Entrants: 6
Non-Australian Seeds: 2 (out of 12)
Matches won for title: 4 (received walkover in final)

1969 Australian Open
Draw Size: 32
Non-Australian Entrants: 7
Non-Australian Seeds: 4 (out of 10)
Matches won for title: 5

1970 Australian Open
Draw Size: 43
Non-Australian Entrants: 4
Non-Australian Seeds: 2 (out of 8)
Matches won for title: 5

1971 Australian Open
Draw Size: 30
Non-Australian Entrants: 4
Non-Australian Seeds: 3 (out of 8)
Matches won for title: 4

1973 Australian Open
Draw Size: 48
Non-Australian Entrants: 16
Non-Australian Seeds: 3 (out of 12)
Matches won for title: 5
Source Williansohanian from tennisforum.
Op also said he might have mixed up for some NZ players from Australia in counting.
These draw are really weak to even claim Court over Serena, Martina or Evert.
Either Court is top over everybody or behind these four
Who were the players banned from competing? If none was that Courts fault they didn’t bother competing? Should they get credit for not competing?
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
You think winning 4 slams in a row over 2 years is the same level achievement as 4 in a row in the same tennis season. In 1 tennis season you have 1 chance to win the grand slam, ie the starting point is the AO. You have to win it to have a chance at calendar grand slam. If we’re looking at 4 slams in a row over 2 tennis seasons you actually have 5 chances to win it as all 4 slams in year 1 can be a starting point to win 4 in a row, and the 5th chance is the AO the following year. So statistically it’s far easier to win 4 in a row over 2 tennis seasons with 5 potential starting points, compared to only 1 starting point if you want to win all 4 in 1 tennis season. In your 2 year model it’s no big deal if you lose at AO, FO, Wim or USO as you can just start again at the very next slam.
Wouldn’t waste my time, some people here will not get it anyways. The CYGS is the ultimate achievement in tennis while Novak Slam or Serena Slam are recent inventions by the media. This fact alone puts way much pressure on any player with a serious shot at CYGS which makes it an accomplishment harder to achieve (as could perfectly be observed with Serena and Novak at their respective USO runs). People who think any four in a row would be equal to the CYGS probably also think it would be the same for a football club result-wise to win 34 consecutive matches in one season as spread over two seasons.
 

skaj

Legend
You think winning 4 slams in a row over 2 years is the same level achievement as 4 in a row in the same tennis season. In 1 tennis season you have 1 chance to win the grand slam, ie the starting point is the AO. You have to win it to have a chance at calendar grand slam. If we’re looking at 4 slams in a row over 2 tennis seasons you actually have 5 chances to win it as all 4 slams in year 1 can be a starting point to win 4 in a row, and the 5th chance is the AO the following year. So statistically it’s far easier to win 4 in a row over 2 tennis seasons with 5 potential starting points, compared to only 1 starting point if you want to win all 4 in 1 tennis season. In your 2 year model it’s no big deal if you lose at AO, FO, Wim or USO as you can just start again at the very next slam.

Oh dear, you still don’t get it. Or you’re just being desperate, either way - there is the statistic IF you choose the calendar, or the arbitrary concept called ”the Grand Slam”. You can also choose a different calendar or come up with a different arbitrary concept(for example 4 in a row starting with Roland Garros) and you will have a different statistic. Well, the same, but with different months and a different slam you "have to win". That is the whole point – it is not a big deal if you lose at any slam before you win all four in a row, people are making it a big deal for stupid reasons(explained in my previous, and partially in this post).

I said that 4 in a row is 4 in a row. The context can make a difference, yes. But the calendar year alone, or an arbitrary concept like “the Grand Slam” are hardly the entire context.
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
I said that 4 in a row is 4 in a row. The context can make a difference, yes. But the calendar year alone, or an arbitrary concept like “the Grand Slam” are hardly the entire context.

If you took a poll of all players and fans and asked ‘would you prefer to win all 4 slam in 1 tennis season or 4 in a row over 2 tennis seasons’ I‘m pretty sure it would be a 100% result, not 50-50 as your idea would suggest.
 
Top