Women's Players Ranked by Tier

[EvonneFedererBorgster]

I am also curious about why some people have Austin so high? She definitely shone brightly during her time at the very top with top flight competition, but it was so brief and she never made it past the semifinals of Wimbledon. I realized I failed to put her on my list, but I don’t see her much higher than tier 5 given the length of her much too short career. She played so many tour events during the school year, it’s a shame she didn’t play the French before 1982.

 

[boredone3456]

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

Maybe because Mary Pierce made 6 major finals and Kvitova made 3? It also arguable that Pierce had a higher peak level of play than Kvitova. Kvitova did win more titles however.

 

[boredone3456]

I am also curious about why some people have Austin so high? She definitely shone brightly during her time at the very top with top flight competition, but it was so brief and she never made it past the semifinals of Wimbledon. I realized I failed to put her on my list, but I don’t see her much higher than tier 5 given the length of her much too short career. She played so many tour events during the school year, it’s a shame she didn’t play the French before 1982.

Austin was the only one not named Evert or Navratilova to get to #1 for several years, she broke the monopoly at the top. She gets a lot of credit for that.

 

[pierceforehands]

I am also curious about why some people have Austin so high? She definitely shone brightly during her time at the very top with top flight competition, but it was so brief and she never made it past the semifinals of Wimbledon. I realized I failed to put her on my list, but I don’t see her much higher than tier 5 given the length of her much too short career. She played so many tour events during the school year, it’s a shame she didn’t play the French before 1982.

I agree. Not sure she deserves to even make the bottom tier in all honesty. I dont think most are overrating here her though, it is mostly loud loudmouths like Hard Court who are hardly tennis experts. The knowledgeable of us aren't really overrating her, only those without any tennis knowledge. I agree with your assessment on her.

 

[pierceforehands]

Maybe because Mary Pierce made 6 major finals and Kvitova made 3? It also arguable that Pierce had a higher peak level of play than Kvitova. Kvitova did win more titles however.

I think Pierce belongs above Kvitova hands down. Kvitova is obviously better on grass, but Pierce is much better on both clay and grass, and if Kvitova is better on carpet at all it is just barely. Pierce has a ton more quality slam results, was more consistent throughout her career (this is relative, neither were super consistent, but Pierce ended every year from 94-2000 except 1 in the top 10). Neither reached #1 so that isn't even an edge for Kvitova.

 

[Hard Court]

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

Good catch. Pierce is probably too high. Kvitova won as many Grand Slam tournaments, and also won a Tour Final. Kvitova also won more matches slightly better winning %. Kvitova won 31 tournaments to the 18 that Pierce won. Pierce did make it to 5 GS finals while Kvitova only made it 3, but that doesn't seem to be enough to rate her a level ahead.

Should Kvitova go up to Level? that is a tough call I do think that the other Level 6 players are slightly better. She has some things in her favor against some of them, but they have things in their favor as well.

Someone else mentioned Austin as possibly being too high at Level 4. I wanted to make this more than just Slam counting. She was right there with Evert and Navratilova for three years. The most obvious Player from Level 5 is Wade, who also played with Evert and Navratilova for a long time. Wade could not come close to seriously competing with Evert and Navratliova for any real length of time like Austin did.

 

[buscemi]

I think Pierce belongs above Kvitova hands down. Kvitova is obviously better on grass, but Pierce is much better on both clay and grass, and if Kvitova is better on carpet at all it is just barely. Pierce has a ton more quality slam results, was more consistent throughout her career (this is relative, neither were super consistent, but Pierce ended every year from 94-2000 except 1 in the top 10). Neither reached #1 so that isn't even an edge for Kvitova.

Yeah, I would have Pierce ahead of Kvitova, but I don't know about the two being in different tiers. You note some things in favor of Pierce, but Petra winning the WTA Finals makes it closer.

 

[pierceforehands]

Yeah, I would have Pierce ahead of Kvitova, but I don't know about the two being in different tiers. You note some things in favor of Pierce, but Petra winning the WTA Finals makes it closer.

This is the thing about tiers that it is obvious by the comments some are not realizing, and I get as it is easy to forget. You can place someone in the same tier as someone else and still have them further apart in your mind than the lower of the two to a person you place in a lower tier. You have to decide where you are moving to the next tier at some point, there isn't a nice even cut off point typically where you have 8 people who range from say a 9.625 to 9.7 then a decisive gap to a next group of 9.35 to 9.414 or something, as that is not the way reality works as nice as it would be to neatly fit like this. I see so many people here saying you have A and B in the same tier and C in the next but B and C are closer than A and B, but that can easily happen, and it can be known by the individual despite placing them that way. So someone who has Pierce and Kvitova in different tiers may view them very close, but it may be the point they decided they need the break and they may have Pierce further apart from another they have in the same tier as her, but Pierce may be at the bottom and that person at or near the top of that tier. That applies to a lot of players on different individuals lists.

That said yes you are right but Pierce has two YEC finals which I think comes close to neutralizing Kvitova's YEC title (she doesn't have another final IIRC). Plus beating Graf en route to the semis in 94. One thing in fairness that is largely in Kvitova's favor that is not reflected in stats is that she was the real #1 of 2011, everyone knows that, I do think Woz has a case for her also controversial YE#1 in 2010 (even if Clijsters or Serena possibly have a better one) but absolutely none for 2011 which is one of the biggest jokes ever; and yes while statistically both she and Pierce never reached #1 even for a week, Kvitova was the real YE#1 of one year, which is definitely not true of Pierce ever. So that does bring them closer, along with possibly the YEC title, although as I mentioned I think Pierce's excellent results at the YEC come close to neutralizing that anyway.

 

[PDJ]

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.

I like this list: Bueno given her flowers.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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

Using the analytical capabilities of AI, I have entered the following question into the AI receptors.

"How would you rank the top women tennis players of all time into 4 tiers?"

The answer,

"A possible four-tier ranking of the top women's tennis players is:

Tier 1: Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Chris Evert, and Martina Navratilova.

Tier 2: Monica Seles, Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills Moody, and Billie Jean King.

Tier 3: Maureen Connolly, Martina Hingis, Justine Henin, and Venus Williams.

Tier 4: Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, and other highly accomplished players.

This is a subjective ranking that varies based on the criteria used, such as Grand Slam titles, weeks at No. 1, and overall dominance in their respective eras."

Activating the "Deeper AI" analysis yields a slightly different group,

"Ranking the top women's tennis players of all time involves a degree of subjectivity, but general consensus places certain players at the pinnacle based on Grand Slam titles, dominance, and impact. A common four-tier ranking would look like this:

Tier 1: The Undisputed Titans
This tier comprises the players most frequently cited as the absolute greatest, defined by sustained dominance, numerous Grand Slam victories, and significant influence on the sport.

• Serena Williams: With 23 Grand Slam singles titles in the Open Era (the most for any player, male or female) and 319 weeks at world No. 1, her power game and longevity are legendary.
• Steffi Graf: The only player to achieve the "Golden Slam" (all four Grand Slams and the Olympic gold in a single calendar year, 1988), she has 22 major titles and holds the record for most total weeks at No. 1 (377).
• Martina Navratilova: Known for her serve-and-volley style, she won 18 Grand Slam singles titles, along with numerous doubles and mixed doubles titles, and had a career total of 167 tour titles, more than any other player.
• Chris Evert: A paragon of consistency, she reached the semifinals or better in 52 of the 56 majors she played and won 18 Grand Slam singles titles, maintaining a career winning percentage of over 90%.
• Margaret Court: The all-time leader with 24 Grand Slam singles titles (a mix of pre-Open and Open Era), her remarkable winning percentages underscore her dominance.
• 
  Tier 2: All-Time Greats with Notable Achievements
  These players dominated their own eras and have multiple major titles, though perhaps not the same level of sustained consistency or total Grand Slam count as Tier 1.
  • Billie Jean King: A powerful advocate for the sport and gender equality, she won 12 Grand Slam singles titles and was a dominant force in the 1960s and 70s.
  • Monica Seles: Before her career was interrupted, she was on a path to being in Tier 1, winning nine Grand Slam singles titles as a teenager.
  • Justine Henin: Known for her versatile, all-court game and powerful backhand, she won seven Grand Slam singles titles and was a dominant world No. 1 in the mid-2000s.
  • Suzanne Lenglen: A pre-Open Era legend who lost very few matches and was incredibly popular, revolutionizing the sport in the 1920s.
• Tier 3: Elite Champions
  This tier includes players who achieved significant success, including multiple major titles and world No. 1 rankings, but perhaps were less dominant over their entire career than those in higher tiers.
  • Venus Williams: A seven-time Grand Slam singles champion and a trailblazer in the sport, particularly at Wimbledon where she won five titles.
  • Martina Hingis: A teenage phenomenon, she won five Grand Slam singles titles and held the No. 1 ranking in both singles and doubles, known for her tactical brilliance.
  • Evonne Goolagong Cawley: A seven-time Grand Slam singles champion, known for her fluid style and reaching multiple finals.
  • Lindsay Davenport: Known for her powerful groundstrokes, she won three Grand Slam singles titles and reached the world No. 1 ranking multiple times.
  • Kim Clijsters: A popular player who won four Grand Slam singles titles, including three after coming out of retirement.
  • 
    
  • Tier 4: Notable and Accomplished Players
    This tier includes players with one or more Grand Slam wins, significant tour titles, and high rankings, recognized as top competitors of their time.
    • Maria Sharapova: A five-time Grand Slam champion who achieved a career Grand Slam.
    • Tracy Austin: A former world No. 1 and two-time US Open champion.
    • Arantxa Sánchez Vicario: Known for her fighting spirit, she won four Grand Slam singles titles and reached the world No. 1 ranking.
    • Victoria Azarenka, Angelique Kerber, and Iga Świątek (active): These modern players have multiple Grand Slam titles and world No. 1 rankings, solidifying their place among the elite.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Connolly in a lower tier than Seles? Yeah **** no to that. Connolly is basically a more dominant version of Seles, and she did it when 3 of 4 slams were on their weakest surface grass. Imagine if Seles were born when 3 of 4 slams were on grass, she probably retires as like a 4 time slam winner now (with atleast 3 of the 4 being French Open), the good news is she is never stabbed anymore as she is never going to be relevant enough to inspire the pscyho to stab her. By contrast if there is barely any grass, the worst surface of Seles and Connolly, in Connolly's day, and instead surfaces like Seles's day, Connolly is probably somehow even more dominant, yes more dominant than the person who already won all 9 slams she played ages 16-19, but with mostly slower courts like in Seles's day, and mostly hard courts with clay the 2nd most prominent surface, Connolly now probably only loses 1 or 2 matches total in 51-54 before the accident, LOL!

And both are similar what if cases. Seles had a chance of being the best ever without the stabbing, I doubt she would have been, but it is atleast a plausible possability I agree, while Connolly was about 99.9999% likely to become the hands down best ever without her horse accident, so even in that comparision Connolly is the blow out winner. Connolly has to atleast be same tier as Seles, whatever that is, and quite possibly a higher one, but a lower tier renders the argument of any such source invalid already. Nothing else they say can even matter anymore.