Women's Players Ranked by Tier

[Hard Court]

Thought this would be interesting. I ranked players by tier, with 6-10 players per tier. Each time there is at least one or two that could be higher/lower. Was wondering if people's opinions are similar to who I had in mind as for moving up or down. Also thought it would be fun to debate different players rather than the same arguments over and over. (i.e. is Graf the first, second, third best or whatever.)

Anyway, here it is:

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Connolly, Gibson, King, Seles

Tier 3 - Mallory, Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Bueno, Goolagong, Henin, V. Williams

Tier 4 - Chambers, Jacobs, Fry, Haydon-Jones, Austin, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis, Sharapova

Tier 5 - Sutton, Wightman, Mortimer, Hard, Round, Wade, Mandlikova, Sanchez-Vicario

 

[BTURNER]

I always put Connolly in Tier one. She has the kind of golden record that GOAT nominees get lauded for. The only woman who ever won all four championships without losing a set, and first seasonal grand slam champion. Her career singles slam win rate is 96%. The flaws in her near perfect record, was that she was unable to win her second round US National matches at the age of 14 and15. She never lost another singles match in singles slam play for the next 4 years and retired from the game.

 

[buscemi]

There's a lot to process here, but I'll start with one observation I think we've discussed on here recently: I don't get the basis for having Jones ahead of Mortimer and Hard.

All three had three Majors, but Mortimer was 19-10 against Jones and Hard was 18-13 against Jones.

And there's not really an age explanation here. Yes, Mortimer was six years older than Jones, but she won their last 3 matches when she was 30. Plus Mortimer is generally considered #1 in 1961 while Jones was never considered the #1 player.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

Is there a prize for our effort?

 

[Dan Lobb]

I always put Connolly in Tier one. She has the kind of golden record that GOAT nominees get lauded for. The only woman who ever won all four championships without losing a set, and first seasonal grand slam champion. Her career singles slam win rate is 96%. The flaws in her near perfect record, was that she was unable to win her second round US National matches at the age of 14 and15. She never lost another singles match in singles slam play for the next 4 years and retired from the game.

Rather a short career.

 

[BTURNER]

Rather a short career.

Yes and it is not a bell shaped curve, with a beginning, a peak and a decline so I know that stat cannot be compared with a normal career. But 5 years ... 96%. I defy anyone to come up with another example like this.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes and it is not a bell shaped curve, with a beginning, a peak and a decline so I know that stat cannot be compared with a normal career. But 5 years ... 96%. I defy anyone to come up with another example like this.

Too short a career to be compared with anyone else. Admittedly it was terminated by injury, but she was already out of the main women circuit.

 

[buscemi]

Yes and it is not a bell shaped curve, with a beginning, a peak and a decline so I know that stat cannot be compared with a normal career. But 5 years ... 96%. I defy anyone to come up with another example like this.

Connolly and Seles are similar, with the two notable exceptions being that (1) Connolly was even more dominant; and (2) Seles had her comeback after the stabbing, where she was still great, but clearly never the player she once was.

But, basically, Connolly dominates from the 1951 U.S. National Championships through Wimbledon in 1954 before her horse riding accident at age 19.

Seles dominates from the 1990 WTA Finals through the spring of 1993 before the stabbing at age 19.

 

[Debraj]

Swiatek not even in tier 5?is this only for retired players?

 

[pierceforehands]

Connolly and Seles are similar, with the two notable exceptions being that (1) Connolly was even more dominant; and (2) Seles had her comeback after the stabbing, where she was still great, but clearly never the player she once was.

But, basically, Connolly dominates from the 1951 U.S. National Championships through Wimbledon in 1954 before her horse riding accident at age 19.

Seles dominates from the 1990 WTA Finals through the spring of 1993 before the stabbing at age 19.

Connolly's worst surface was also grass, and she still dominated despite 3 of the 4 majors being on grass. Imagine if in Seles's day 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. The good news for her is she is no longer stabbed, there is no way she is doing well enough to lead to psycho Parche going there anymore. Losing a few matches to Seles on clay would not be enough, otherwise Sabatini would have been stabbed by him.

Anyway there are many who project Connolly would have dominated until the mid 60s. Nobody projects Seles dominating that far even without the stabbing.

In contrast though Connolly's achievements are a bit tainted by Betz's ban as Betz was still doing well against Connolly. Seles has nothing like that, Navratilova was old, and Graf was in a big slump atleast at the start of Seles's rise (91 was one of her worst years ever), but those are just part of the game, while Betz's ban was unjust and hugely beneficial to Maureen. So that is a plus for Seles in coparision, albeit about the only one.

Connolly also faced a deeper field though. She faced all time peak Hart who was probably a bit better than badly slumping Graf, 30 year old Brough who was better than 35 year old Navratilova, and Fry who was definitely better than Sabatini. And was still more dominant.

 

[pierceforehands]

Only doing retired players (I count Venus as a retired player despite her current insanity)

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Connolly, King, Seles, Hingis, Venus Williams, Henin

Tier 3 - Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Fry, Gibson, Fry, Bueno, Davenport, Sharapova, Clijsters

Tier 4 - Chambers, Haydon, Goolagong, Mandlikova, Sanchez Vicario

Tier 5 - Mallory, McKane Godfrey, Jacobs, Mortimer, Hard, Wade, Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo

 

[buscemi]

In contrast though Connolly's achievements are a bit tainted by Betz's ban as Betz was still doing well against Connolly. Seles has nothing like that, Navratilova was old, and Graf was in a big slump atleast at the start of Seles's rise (91 was one of her worst years ever), but those are just part of the game, while Betz's ban was unjust and hugely beneficial to Maureen. So that is a plus for Seles in coparision, albeit about the only one.

The exhibition series that Betz and Connolly were supposed to play would have been so critical. If there were a definitive winner in that series, I lowkey feel like they could be considered the GOAT. Alas, the horse had other plans.

 

[buscemi]

Only doing retired players (I count Venus as a retired player despite her current insanity)

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Connolly, King, Seles, Hingis, Venus Williams, Henin

Tier 3 - Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Fry, Gibson, Fry, Bueno, Davenport, Sharapova, Clijsters

Tier 4 - Chambers, Haydon, Goolagong, Mandlikova, Sanchez Vicario

Tier 5 - Mallory, McKane Godfrey, Jacobs, Mortimer, Hard, Wade, Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo

I'm (again) interested in your placement of Haydon-Jones in a tier above Mortimer and Hard. This seems to be the historical consensus, so maybe it's just me, but I don't see how Ann is a tier above the other two.

 

[pierceforehands]

I'm (again) interested in your placement of Haydon-Jones in a tier above Mortimer and Hard. This seems to be the historical consensus, so maybe it's just me, but I don't see how Ann is a tier above the other two.

Well in Jones's case one thing is she had the disadvantage of playing at a time 3 of 4 slams were on her worst surface (grass) and she still managed 3 majors beating prime King and peak Court back to back to win a Wimbledon. Imagine if she had played in the few years to come when 2 majors were on clay, her best surface, she very likely has more majors. Or even if the Australian and US Opens were on hard courts, she again has more than 3.

Hard and Mortimer's best surface was grass I believe, so they had a much more advantageous situation, and still at best only roughly matches Jones's stats.

I also think Jones's played in a much tougher time with King and Court in their primes, Wade coming up, Richey in her prime, Turner (a great clay courter, Jones's best surface) in her prime, and Bueno a lot of her career too. Hard and Mortimer kind of peaked in the period a lot of the greats of the 50s were declining/retiring and before Court and all those to follow really emerged.

I agree there are good arguments they should be in the same tier, these are the reasons I didn't have it that way though. As for the others, I can't speak to if their reasoning it similar to mine or not.

 

[pierceforehands]

The exhibition series that Betz and Connolly were supposed to play would have been so critical. If there were a definitive winner in that series, I lowkey feel like they could be considered the GOAT. Alas, the horse had other plans.

Do you think there is a universe Betz is ever recognized as GOAT today though, even if she earned/deserved it? I kind of doubt it. I do agree if Betz won that series she could legitimately be viewed as the GOAT today, even if she would get recognition for it by almost nobody today (she may have while still alive which would be satisfaction enough probably).

Now Connolly would have even more GOAT backers, she already has some, than she currently does, had she won that series, especialy decisively. The recency bias is not as strongly against her as Betz, in part since the ban and War situations makes Betz even more hidden than she already would be, and I don't think winning an epic tour with Connolly would change much of that today, but could have in the short term.

 

[buscemi]

Hard and Mortimer's best surface was grass I believe, so they had a much more advantageous situation, and still at best only roughly matches Jones's stats.

I love how this makes me look to learn more about these players.

Hard's best surface does indeed seem to be grass. She was 220-56 (79.7%) on grass and 99-45 (68.8%) on clay.

But Mortimer's best surface appears to be clay, at least from the stats: 218-45 (82.9%) on grass and 231-32 (87.8%) on clay.

Mortimer did only have one title at Roland Garros, but she only played it three times: (1) 1953 at age 21, when she lost to former champion Nelly Landry in the third round; (2) 1955 when she won it; and (3) 1956, when she lost in the final to Althea Gibson.

Edited to add: Mortimer and Jones were 4-4 on clay, with Mortimer winning four of their last five matches on the surface in 1962 when she was 29/30 and Jones was 23.

 

[buscemi]

Do you think there is a universe Betz is ever recognized as GOAT today though, even if she earned/deserved it? I kind of doubt it. I do agree if Betz won that series she could legitimately be viewed as the GOAT today, even if she would get recognition for it by almost nobody today (she may have while still alive which would be satisfaction enough probably).

Now Connolly would have even more GOAT backers, she already has some, than she currently does, had she won that series, especialy decisively. The recency bias is not as strongly against her as Betz, in part since the ban and War situations makes Betz even more hidden than she already would be, and I don't think winning an epic tour with Connolly would change much of that today, but could have in the short term.

I don't know how many exhibition matches they planned to play and/or whether Connolly would ahve been paid/forced to give up her amateur status.

But let's say there were 20 matches played, and Betz wins 13-7, with Connolly staying an amateur and dominating to the tune of 18+ Majors.

In that event, with Betz winning the series with Connolly and having dominant H2Hs against the likes of Hart, Brough, and duPont, I think she'd have a great case.

Now, that's not to say that I think Betz would have won the series with Connolly. But it sure would have been some crackerjack tennis.

 

[buscemi]

I think I agree with Gibson in Tier 3 (pierceforehands) as opposed to Tier 2 (Hard Courts).

On the one hand, she had to overcome a lot to achieve her success and turned pro when she was dominating the Majors. On the other hand, Shirley Fry had just beaten her in the last three Majors from 1956-1957 before retiring to set the stage for Gibson to dominate.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think I agree with Gibson in Tier 3 (pierceforehands) as opposed to Tier 2 (Hard Courts).

On the one hand, she had to overcome a lot to achieve her success and turned pro when she was dominating the Majors. On the other hand, Shirley Fry had just beaten her in the last three Majors from 1956-1957 before retiring to set the stage for Gibson to dominate.

Yes, unless you give her credit for overcoming the massive racism at the time, which I could understand if one does, and being a trailblazer, she is in no higher a tier than Brough, Du Pont, Brough, and possibly Fry from her own era.

Also the idea she could be in a higher tier than Venus as OP had her, again if you are only evaluating their tennis achievements and greatnesss for their time, and not alterior factors, is just laughable.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Betz, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, King, Seles, Venus Williams, Henin

between Tier 2 and Tier 3- Bueno, Hingis

Tier 3 - Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Fry, Gibson, Fry, Bueno, Davenport

between Tier 3 and Tier 4- Goolagong, Clijsters

Tier 4 - Chambers, Mandlikova, Sharapova

Tier 5 - Mallory, Godfrey, Mortimer, Hayden Jones, Sanchez Vicario

Tier 4 might seem harsh for Sharapova given her Career Slam and 5 slams but that she was never truly the world #1, especialy for a year, and her embarassing record vs Serena which speaks to limitations in her abilities knock her down. Achievement wise Sanchez should be Tier 4 atleast, but she got such luck with the Seles stabbing and other elements of luck I also knocked her down.

 

[thrust]

I'm (again) interested in your placement of Haydon-Jones in a tier above Mortimer and Hard. This seems to be the historical consensus, so maybe it's just me, but I don't see how Ann is a tier above the other two.

I AGREE.

 

[buscemi]

Tier 5 - Mallory, Godfrey, Mortimer, Hayden Jones, Sanchez Vicario

The one (retired) player I haven't seen listed yet in any of these tiered lists is Barty. I think I'd include her given her 3 Majors and time at #1, even if there's some COVID-era oddness around all that.

 

[martinezownsclay]

The one (retired) player I haven't seen listed yet in any of these tiered lists is Barty. I think I'd include her given her 3 Majors and time at #1, even if there's some COVID-era oddness around all that.

I forgot Barty. Not sure if I would include her on not. As you will note I did not include Capriati as some others did, and I am not sure I consider Barty any better than Capriati.

 

[buscemi]

I forgot Barty. Not sure if I would include her on not. As you will note I did not include Capriati as some others did, and I am not sure I consider Barty any better than Capriati.

Curious for your reasoning of having Godfree over Capriati.

Capriati won 3 Majors and had some time at #1, albeit both with some caveats.

Godfree won 2 Majors (both Wimbledon, though) and was never seen as #1. And, just as Capriati has some caveats, Lenglen having to withdraw from both Wimbledons Godfree won seems like some important context.

 

[Hard Court]

Thought I would answer some of my picks"

Connolly was a tough call. She is either the last pick for Tier 1 or the best of Tier. Could go either way on that.

Haydon Jones, Mortimer, and Hard. I had Haydon Jones in a higher tier mainly for two things: She won 136 tournaments. No matter how we want to deflate this, that is an awful lot of tournaments that she won. Mortimer didn't win as many Jones, though she won over 100. Hard wasn't remotely close.
Also, Haydon Jones made it to the Finals of a Grand Slam 9 times which is more than Mortimer and Hard. But yes, a judgement call. Jones was the last person from tier 4.

Willaims and Henin don't have much of a case for Tier 2. Obviously, King and Seles were clearly better players. Betz, Marble, and Gibson didn't win as many Grand Slams because they turned pro for the $. Williams and Henin would have done the same thing. However, look at how they did in the limited time they had. Betz only played 10 Grand Slams and won 5. Marble only played 12 and won 5. Gibson only played 15 and won 5. Williams won 2 of her first 15. Only 7 of 94 for her career. Henin only had 1 her first 15 and 7 of 35 for her career.
Williams and Henin fit squarely into Level 3.
Don't want to get into Goolagong again. I know the Australian Open card will be played. Yes in two of her 4 Aussies she didn't have good competition. She has Venus Williams beat in just about every other meaningful stat. Winning %. tournaments won. Henin has her in % but not even close in tournaments won. Most importantly, Goolagong made it to 18 Finals. Williams only had 16 and Henin only 12. They all should be Level 3.

Austin was a better player than Mandlikova. Nobody disputed that when they played. She was always ranked a head of her. Even though her career eneded well before Mandlikovas, she still won more tournaments. Austin had a higher % The only thing Mandlikova has over her is that she won more Grand Slams after Auston had to retire. I hope we are at the point that we know Grand Slams don't automatically trump everything else put together. To Mandlikova at Level 4 and not even have Austin in Tier 5 is just simply wrong.

Barty only won 15 titles and only made it to the final of 3 Grand Slams. Tier 5 would have pushing it.
Capriati and Godfree just missed the cut. Capriati wasted much of her career but did salvage some of it. Still only 3 GS finals, only 14 titles.
Godfree only won 2. She did make to 6 GS Finals

 

[Vincent-C]

> I love how this makes me look to learn more about these players.

Agreed. I'm pleased, too, to see that my fave Mandlikova makes most lists here.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Only doing retired players (I count Venus as a retired player despite her current insanity)

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Connolly, King, Seles, Hingis, Venus Williams, Henin

Tier 3 - Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Fry, Gibson, Fry, Bueno, Davenport, Sharapova, Clijsters

Tier 4 - Chambers, Haydon, Goolagong, Mandlikova, Sanchez Vicario

Tier 5 - Mallory, McKane Godfrey, Jacobs, Mortimer, Hard, Wade, Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo

Hingis in the same tier as Seles seems wild to me (despite her 15-5 record and 31 more weeks at No.1 which could even be more if not for the Co-No.1 times) but I’d love to hear your reasoning, maybe I am missing something. For me, 9 to 5 slams is too much for me to overcome. On the other hand, Pova has the same number of slams as Hingis, with a CGS to boot. I find it tough to put Hingis a tier above.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Curious for your reasoning of having Godfree over Capriati.

Capriati won 3 Majors and had some time at #1, albeit both with some caveats.

Godfree won 2 Majors (both Wimbledon, though) and was never seen as #1. And, just as Capriati has some caveats, Lenglen having to withdraw from both Wimbledons Godfree won seems like some important context.

Well for one thing Godfree beat Wills twice at Wimbledon. Super impressive, even if it was slightly pre prime Wills. Took her to 3 sets in their US Open final in 25 too.

Capriati did not even reach the final of either of the two most important events- Wimbledon, US Open. Godfrey barely played the US Open but still managed to win Wimbledon twice. She never played an Australian Open, and the only major she played regularly was Wimbledon so I don't put much stock into 3 majors to 2. Godfrey reached 6 slam finals to only 3 for Capriati. Capriati won only 14 tournaments which is extremely low for a 3 major winner.

 

[pierceforehands]

Hingis in the same tier as Seles seems wild to me (despite her 15-5 record and 31 more weeks at No.1 which could even be more if not for the Co-No.1 times) but I’d love to hear your reasoning, maybe I am missing something. For me, 9 to 5 slams is too much for me to overcome. On the other hand, Pova has the same number of slams as Hingis, with a CGS to boot. I find it tough to put Hingis a tier above.

I factor doubles into my rankings. Hingis is a legendary doubles player, in addition to an excellent singles player. Seles being owned so badly by Venus and Hingis in head to head, plus their great doubles careers vs her non existing one, led to me putitng them all in the same tier. I even thought of putting King in the first tier due to doubles, but decided the gulf between her as a singles player and those I already have there was too much. The problem is there aren't enough tiers to seperate everyone, just because I put people in the same tier does not mean I consider them exactly equal. When you compare Hingis to Seles individually I can see your point on the seperation though, but I wound up deciding Venus was close enough to Seles to be in the same tier, and then Hingis was close enough to Venus to be in the same tier, even if Hingis vs Seles the gap seems bigger than both of those, again it is complicated.

As for Hingis and Sharapova, I consider Hingis far above Sharapova, even in just singles. Sharapova's only places of being equal or marginally ahead are both having 5 slams and the Career Slam. The Career Slam is ridiculously overhyped/overrated, it was basically invented as a way to hype up Agassi. And it is virtually ignored for people the powers that be don't want to build up; eg- the Shirley Fry topic Buscemi started where experts ranking lists that look as if they were done by people almost as dumb as Hard Court have Fry behind some slamless or 1 slam players, despite her Career Slam (the fact this proves she has atleast 4 slams should automatically put her above such people, even if we ignore the Career Slam aspect), especialy make me refuse to give it much credence, as it is only selectively considered anyway. So now that we covered the literal only edge Maria has over Martina Hingis is worth basically nothing to me, and they both have 5 slams. Hingis blows the **** out of Sharapova when it comes to weeks at #1, YE#1s, her best year in 1997 destroys Maria's best year by a million times over. In addition to being ahead by a lot in dominance, I have her ahead in consistency easily too as her consistency in her prime to semi prime period (97-2001) easily beats Maria's best 5 year stretch, her best 3 year stretch (97-99) blows away Maria's by a ton too, she has more YE titles, more titles despite a way shorter singles career, many more Tier 1 titles. Maria never had a point she was even slightly the best player in the world, Hingis had about 18 months she was not only the best but absolutely dominant and by far the best, and other periods she arguably was. Yes some of Martina's time at #1, especialy at the end was a bit questionable, and her 2000 YE#1 was questionable, but some would argue she deserved the YE#1 for 98 too, so 3 is not even that inflated, and Maria's 0 is exactly what she deserves too. Also Maria even equalling Hingis in slams and her vaunted Career Slam comes from her 2 RG titles vs Martina's 0. In a subjective sense that is purely laughable to me, as having watched both play for years I don't even feel Maria is any better a clay courter than Martina, even after Maria improved on clay. She simply lucked to hit her clay peak in one of the worst clay fields ever, while Martina peaked during a really tough time for clay, and still got unlucky and also had bad timing to not peak at the French (the latter her part so not an excuse). So Martina for me blows Maria in just singles alone, and then when you add to that I consider doubles it becomes even less of a comparision. Yes Martina IMO absolutely belongs in a higher tier than Maria.

Also Hard Clown having Goolagong in a higher tier altogether than Hingis is just ROTFL. I guarantee you even @EvonneFedererBorgster who is Evonne's biggest fan on this site would not agree with that. Watch Hard Clown come back with me being a simpleton not up to his amazing expertise on the game consumed with recency bias when all major all time ranking lists published have Hingis clearly above Goolagong by varying margins, but not one has Goolagong ahead or even close to ahead, and Bud Collins himself came up with an all time ranking list in the 2000s and Hingis was above Goolagong by a ton too. However I am sure Hard Clown will tell us all how Bud Collins is also a simpleton whose knowledge on the game pales in comparision to him a random dumb ass on an internet forum who is the laughing stock of everyone on said forum.

 

[EvonneFedererBorgster]

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Bueno, King, Seles

Tier 3 - Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Fry, Gibson, Goolagong, Davenport, Hingis, V. Williams, Henin

Tier 4 - Chambers, Haydon, Mandlikova, Sanchez Vicario, Clijsters, Sharapova

Tier 5 - Mallory, McKane Godfrey, Jacobs, Mortimer, Hard, Wade, Capriati, Barty

Honestly the pre-open era is iffy for me except Connolly, Bueno, Gibson etc. So that can be taken with a grain of salt. I do see Connolly as tier one, more than Seles given the calendar slam on grass in three of four majors.

 

[sureshs]

Swiatek not even in tier 5?is this only for retired players?

Yes, since it is in this section of the forum

 

[boredone3456]

There's a lot to process here, but I'll start with one observation I think we've discussed on here recently: I don't get the basis for having Jones ahead of Mortimer and Hard.

All three had three Majors, but Mortimer was 19-10 against Jones and Hard was 18-13 against Jones.

And there's not really an age explanation here. Yes, Mortimer was six years older than Jones, but she won their last 3 matches when she was 30. Plus Mortimer is generally considered #1 in 1961 while Jones was never considered the #1 player.

Wasn't Jones considered the #1 player after winning Wimbledon in 1969 by beating both Court and King? She was seeded 1st for that years US Open before she withdrew.

Also Jones made 6 additional major finals... so she made more major finals than either Mortimer or Hard. I also believe she won more overall titles than either of them as well.

 

[boredone3456]

Yes, since it is in this section of the forum

Then Venus shouldn't be on the initial list...she's not retired

 

[Hard Court]

Guess I need to reply to pierceforehands' nice comments about me regarding Goolagong having a Tier above Hingis. No, I didn't check Bud Collins all time rankings before doing this and I have something different than him. GASP!

Here are some reasons why I have Goolagong higher:
Grand Slams: Goolagong 7 Hingis 5.
Grand Slam Finals: Goolagong 18 Hingis 12.
Titles won: Goolagong 86 Hingis 43.
Matches won: Goolagong 740 Hingis 548.
Winning %: Goolagong .810 Hingis .802.

 

[Hard Court]

Guess

Then Venus shouldn't be on the initial list...she's not retired

You are right, she is obviously still playing. I made an exception for her. I included V. Williams because there really isn't anything that is going to change her ranking. She is so far her prime now that losing in the first round doesn't hurt her ranking. She isn't likely going to move up any either.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Bueno, King, Seles

Tier 3 - Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Fry, Gibson, Davenport, Hingis, V. Williams, Henin

Tier 4 - Chambers, Haydon, Goolagong, Mandlikova, Sanchez Vicario, Clijsters, Sharapova

Tier 5 - Mallory, McKane Godfrey, Jacobs, Mortimer, Hard, Wade, Capriati, Barty

Honestly the pre-open era is iffy for me except Connolly, Bueno, Gibson etc. So that can be taken with a grain of salt. I do see Connolly as tier one, more than Seles given the calendar slam on grass in three of four majors.

Good list, one of the best anyone has done so far.

I personally don't think Mandlikova merits the same tier as Goolagong. So would either move Goolagong up to Tier 3 or drop Mandlikova to Tier 5 just to seperate them.

It is also interesting too you have Davenport in a higher tier altogether than Sharapova when they played in the same era and Sharapova has 5 majors to her 3, was owned in their head to head, and has the Career Slam. Then again Davenport has a kazillion times more time at #1 and better stats in every other way. I am not sure I could justify Davenport in the same tier as Venus or Henin personally when they have over twice the majors in the same era, so I would have either moved Venus or Henin up to Tier 2 or dropped Davenport to Tier 4, just to seperate them but it is your list.

 

[pierceforehands]

Good list, one of the best anyone has done so far.

I personally don't think Mandlikova merits the same tier as Goolagong. So would either move Goolagong up to Tier 3 or drop Mandlikova to Tier 5 just to seperate them.

It is also interesting too you have Davenport in a higher tier altogether than Sharapova when they played in the same era and Sharapova has 5 majors to her 3, was owned in their head to head, and has the Career Slam. Then again Davenport has a kazillion times more time at #1 and better stats in every other way. I am not sure I could justify Davenport in the same tier as Venus or Henin personally when they have over twice the majors in the same era, so I would have either moved Venus or Henin up to Tier 2 or dropped Davenport to Tier 4, just to seperate them but it is your list.

I could see Mandlikova being in Goolagong's tier. Goolagong is better but players will have to share a tier with players better or worse than them. Considering what the Australian Open was back then, Goolagong is only really a 4 or 5 slam winner vs Mandlikova who was a 4 slam winner (Australia was a legit slam in the 80s, not the 60s and 70s). Mandlikova did not reach #1, Goolagong did for only 2 weeks. Goolagong has a ton more titles and slam finals (even portioning or even excluding the Australian Open ones) so is clearly ahead, but Mandlikova had it tougher in that she had both Navratilova and Evert for their best for years. Goolagong in her prime years never faced prime Navratilova at all, let alone the peak one that prime Mandlikova had to face for years. Goolagong also had a few years Evert was not yet at full strength, unlike Mandlikova, and while she had King who Mandlikova did not she was aging out of her prime soon when Goolagong faced her anyway.

Goolagong is for sure better overall, but same tier is reasonable.

 

[buscemi]

Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Bueno, King, Seles

Tier 3 - Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Fry, Gibson, Davenport, Hingis, V. Williams, Henin

Tier 4 - Chambers, Haydon, Goolagong, Mandlikova, Sanchez Vicario, Clijsters, Sharapova

Tier 5 - Mallory, McKane Godfrey, Jacobs, Mortimer, Hard, Wade, Capriati, Barty

Honestly the pre-open era is iffy for me except Connolly, Bueno, Gibson etc. So that can be taken with a grain of salt. I do see Connolly as tier one, more than Seles given the calendar slam on grass in three of four majors.

Great list!

 

[Hard Court]

Not really reasonable to think they should be in the same Tier. You really think Mandlikova had tougher competition than Goolagong?
When Goolagong first came up, she had to deal with court and King. And shortly Evert. A few years later Navratilova. There were very good players like Virgina Wade and Nancy Richey. Goolagong did win Australian Opens when court, Navratilova, and Evert were in the field.

Mandlikova never finished higher than #3 in her entire career. Goolagong was #2 in 1971, 1974, and 1976.

When Hana was #3, who was usually #4? Pam Shriver! i.e. no serious other serious contender. You don't think that if Goolagong was in Mandlikova's shoes, she would have been #3?
Goolagong made it to 18 GS finals in her career. Mandlikova made it to 8.
Goolagong won 86 tournaments. Mandlkova won 27.
Goolagong won 740 matches in her career. Mandlikova won 565.
Goolagong won 81% of her matches. Mandlikova only .744

There are several players not as good as Goolagong but better than Mandlikova. There is no way in the world that they belong in the same tier.

 

[buscemi]

I think the best name I haven't seen listed yet is Hildegard Krahwinkel Sperling. Honestly, I don't know much about her myself. The Tennis Abstract 128 has her at #53, just behind Mandlíková among women at #51. She won three straight Roland Garros titles between 1935-1937, and she's considered the #1 player in 1936, where she also made the Wimbledon final, losing to Jacobs, 7-5 in the third set.

I actually came across her name when I was researching Angela Mortimer. In a recent thread, I noted that Mortimer has the highest winning percentage on the indoor surfaces (wood/carpet) of anyone who has played a decent number of matches. That's true, but Sperling is actually undefeated on (what Tennis Abstract lists as) carpet, although she only played 38 matches. She also had an 89.5% winning percentage on clay and a 82.1% winning percentage on grass. Overall, she was 331-41, for a winning percentage of 89%.

Tennis Abstract has her with a total of 90 titles. In terms of head-to-heads, she was 14-1 against two time Roland Garros champion Simonne Mathieu, 10-2 against Jadwiga Jedrzejowska, 5-0 against Roland Garros champion Nelly Landry, 1-4 against Wills (beating her at Queens Club), and 2-3 against Jacobs (beating her at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon).

Seems like she might sneak into the 5th tier.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Still not getting how Mandlikova and Goolagong can be in the same tier for some of you. Someone will need to explain that in more detail. Goolagong is way overrated by some people (eg Hard Courts) but putting her on par with Mandlikova is either underrating Goolagong or overrating Mandlikova.

I guess the one thing in Hana's favor is her slam titles are more impressive than even Evonne's best one. 85 US Open beating peak Evert and peak Navratilova back to back, 81 beating Evert on clay en route to victory, and 87 Australian Open final beating Navratilova on grass. The 80 Australian Open was meh, but still better than all of Evonne's Australian Opens easily apart from maybe 74. Still not enough to bring her that close given their overall careers however.

 

[BTURNER]

I think the best name I haven't seen listed yet is Hildegard Krahwinkel Sperling. Honestly, I don't know much about her myself. The Tennis Abstract 128 has her at #53, just behind Mandlíková among women at #51. She won three straight Roland Garros titles between 1935-1937, and she's considered the #1 player in 1936, where she also made the Wimbledon final, losing to Jacobs, 7-5 in the third set.

I actually came across her name when I was researching Angela Mortimer. In a recent thread, I noted that Mortimer has the highest winning percentage on the indoor surfaces (wood/carpet) of anyone who has played a decent number of matches. That's true, but Sperling is actually undefeated on (what Tennis Abstract lists as) carpet, although she only played 38 matches. She also had an 89.5% winning percentage on clay and a 82.1% winning percentage on grass. Overall, she was 331-41, for a winning percentage of 89%.

Tennis Abstract has her with a total of 90 titles. In terms of head-to-heads, she was 14-1 against two time Roland Garros champion Simonne Mathieu, 10-2 against Jadwiga Jedrzejowska, 5-0 against Roland Garros champion Nelly Landry, 1-4 against Wills (beating her at Queens Club), and 2-3 against Jacobs (beating her at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon).

Seems like she might sneak into the 5th tier.

I would definitely put her fifth tier.
I always thought of her on the short list for clay greatness , never imagined her as playing well on carpet. She won the German Championships 6 consecutive years from 1933 through 1939 (not held in 1936) as well as the Italian in 35, and then there is this tidbit from wiki:

Sperling's only loss on a clay court from 1935 through 1939 was to Simonne Mathieu at a tournament in Beaulieu, France in 1937. The score was 7–5, 6–1, and the two sets took 2 hours and 45 minutes to play. Two games lasted an hour. It was Mathieu's only victory versus Sperling in over 20 career matches.

Nobody listing the most accomplished dirtballers in our history should leave out Sperling's name. She was admitted into the HOF in 2013. . Helen Jacobs once wrote that Sperling was the third-best player she ever played, behind Helen Wills Moody and Suzanne Lenglen. I know I would sleep very comfortably , if I were put behind just behind those two women by a peer..

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I don't know that much about Sperling but I could see her fitting into Tier 5 possibly from the things I have read about her. I am still thinking on my list before I post it.

 

[Vincent-C]

Guess I need to reply to pierceforehands' nice comments about me regarding Goolagong having a Tier above Hingis. No, I didn't check Bud Collins all time rankings before doing this and I have something different than him. GASP!

Here are some reasons why I have Goolagong higher:
Grand Slams: Goolagong 7 Hingis 5.
Grand Slam Finals: Goolagong 18 Hingis 12.
Titles won: Goolagong 86 Hingis 43.
Matches won: Goolagong 740 Hingis 548.
Winning %: Goolagong .810 Hingis .802.

What you're calling "Grand Slams" are actually "major tournaments".

A Grand Slam = winning all four major tournaments in one calendar year, only.

 

[EvonneFedererBorgster]

I edited my post and moved my beloved Evonne up a notch! I was cutting and pasting when I made the original list and that was obviously a blunder! Thanks for pointing that out everyone.

I still wish poor Evonne would have taken just one of those three glorious US Open finals 1973-75 that would have given her the career slam she deserved. I am always vacillating between the three…
A win over Court in what really might have been the Rev’s greatest year.
A very dramatic very rare win over BJK after beating #1 Chris in the semis…
Or the unheard of clay court win over the clay GOAT at the peak of her powers.

I usually settle on option #3. A clay win over #1 Evert would have been one of the greatest achievements of the 1970s. Stopping the streak and leading to an actual recognized world number one ranking in spring 1976. Who knows, maybe it gives her the confidence to win Wimbledon and be year end number one in 1976?

 

[Hard Court]

I looked at what the esteemed panel said and made a few adjustments. I moved Connolly up to tier 1, and Mortimer up from 5 to 4, and put in Krahwinkel Sperling at Level 5. Then I added Levels 6-10. A ton of close calls from 6-10. Many players could go up or down a Level. I'm sure there is someone that got overlooked as well. This was fun to do.


Tier 1 - Lenglen, Wills-Moody, Coinnolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams

Tier 2 - Marble, Betz, Gibson, King, Seles

Tier 3 - Mallory, Hart, Brough, Osborne-DuPont, Bueno, Goolagong, Henin, V. Williams

Tier 4 - Chambers, Jacobs, Fry, Mortimer, Haydon-Jones, Austin, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis, Sharapova

Tier 5 - Sutton, Wightman, Hard, Round, Wade, Mandlikova, Sanchez-Vicario, Krenwinkel Sperling


Level 6 - Browne, Godfree, Palfrey-Cooke, Richey, Sabatini, Pierce, Capriati, Mauresmo, Halep, Barty

Level 7 - Mathieu, Atkinson, Turner, Durr, Novotna, Martinez, Kerber, Kvitova

Level 8 - Dodd, Ryan, Aussem, Lizana, Nuthall, Reid, Na, Pennetta, Kuznetsova, Bartoli

Level 9 - Cooper, Casals, Morozova, Barker, Shriver, Sukova, Safina, Woznacki, Jedrezjewska,

Level 10 - Baker-Fleitz, Jankovic, Ruzici, Hanika, Turnbull, Jaeger, Garrison, Maleeva-Fragniere, Fernandez, Dementieva

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I edited my post and moved my beloved Evonne up a notch! I was cutting and pasting when I made the original list and that was obviously a blunder! Thanks for pointing that out everyone.

I still wish poor Evonne would have taken just one of those three glorious US Open finals 1973-75 that would have given her the career slam she deserved. I am always vacillating between the three…
A win over Court in what really might have been the Rev’s greatest year.
A very dramatic very rare win over BJK after beating #1 Chris in the semis…
Or the unheard of clay court win over the clay GOAT at the peak of her powers.

I usually settle on option #3. A clay win over #1 Evert would have been one of the greatest achievements of the 1970s. Stopping the streak and leading to an actual recognized world number one ranking in spring 1976. Who knows, maybe it gives her the confidence to win Wimbledon and be year end number one in 1976?

From what I know about 76 would Goolagong really have been #1 for the year over Evert even if she had won Wimbledon? Either on the computer or the expert rankings which carried more weight then? I am not sure of that, especialy as she didn't finish the year due to her pregnancy if I recall. She would have 2 majors to Evert's 1 technically now, but the Australian Open was next to no value to experts anyway (I think in rankings it did carry full weight), and they would have split Wimbledon and the US Open, with neither playing the French. Considering Evonne was now into her pregnancy and not that sharp at the US Open and lost the match 3 and 0 as it was, I presume you agree it is a foregone conclusion she loses the 76 US Open final even if she were coming in having won the previous years US Open final and the 76 Wimbledon event. Evert's overall record for the year, outside the slams, was clearly superior by years end though, at the mid point of the year when Goolagong was challenging for computer #1 they were close in that regard, but not by the end.

She would have a better chance at the YE#1 in 75 in this scenario probably, as Evert would only have the fairly lightly regarded (higher than Australia mind you) French Open title in 75, with Evonne doing better at Wimbledon and winning the US Open. Maybe not on the computer but the experts #1.

 

[EvonneFedererBorgster]

Insideforehand, I think you might be misremembering 1975 vs 1976. In ‘76 Evonne suddenly found week in, week out consistentency for the very first time in her career. She made the finals of every single tournament she played, a real change for Evonne at her peak, until she bizarrely played the Sydney Colgate in early December while four (?) months pregnant and promptly lost to Betty Stove in the quarters. Obviously she received a hefty appearance fee. Up to that point she had lost only two matches on the entire slims tour, both finals to Evert. The Wimbledon and USO final to Evert. And another oddity - Chris was injured (thumb?) and unable to participate in the Federation Cup in Philadelphia just one week before the USO began. Retired Billie Jean King stepped in and, even in retirement she beat Evonne in the final to take the title, 7-6, 6-4. Poor Evonne couldnt even beat BJK a year after she retired in what was Evonne’s best year. In hindsight, she was preggers, so…

Evonne lost 4 finals to Chris, one final to BJK and the outlier, one quarter to Big Bad Betty Stove.
I don’t count the L’Eggs 4 woman made for television event in the career head to head as it had no ranking points, nor did the World Invitational Tennis Classic from Sea Pines South Plantation on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina (read in Chris Schenkel baritone).
For unknown reasons those two exhibitions are now usually counted in head to heads, but they were indeed just made for television and awarded zero ranking points by either the WTA or ATP.

Evonne had 6 losses for the year.
Chris lost 5 times - twice to Evonne, once each to Martina, Virginia and a shocker first round to Dianne Fromholtz.
Bizarrely if you look at the entire year Evonne was actually more consistent with her single bad loss being a quarter final to a top ten player. Evert’s single bad loss was in the first round of the Boston slims to a Fromholtz who was then ranked about 15th.

Final WTA Rankings:
#1 Chris Evert (USA) 16.990
#2 Evonne Goolagong Cawley (AUS) 16.326

Evonne ended the year only .5 away from the number one ranking.

Chris was 73-5 for the year 93.6%
Evonne was 61-6 for a 91.04%

1976 was absolutely Evonne’s best year in terms of consistency and she really was just one service hold at Wimbledon at 6-5 in the third set from becoming the number one player of the year.

 

[thrust]

Guess I need to reply to pierceforehands' nice comments about me regarding Goolagong having a Tier above Hingis. No, I didn't check Bud Collins all time rankings before doing this and I have something different than him. GASP!

Here are some reasons why I have Goolagong higher:
Grand Slams: Goolagong 7 Hingis 5.
Grand Slam Finals: Goolagong 18 Hingis 12.
Titles won: Goolagong 86 Hingis 43.
Matches won: Goolagong 740 Hingis 548.
Winning %: Goolagong .810 Hingis .802.

Also, Goolagong had the tougher competition throughout her career: Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Austin. Hingis won most of her slams before: Serena, Venus, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters and Sharapova reached their peak.

 

[buscemi]

Level 6 - Browne, Godfree, Palfrey-Cooke, Richey, Sabatini, Pierce, Capriati, Mauresmo, Halep, Barty

Level 7 - Mathieu, Atkinson, Turner, Durr, Novotna, Martinez, Kerber, Kvitova

Curious as to why you have Kvitova below Pierce (and some others in Level 6).