Tennis.com's 25 Greatest Female Tennis Players of the Open Era

[britbox]

Open Era

1 Serena Williams
2 Steffi Graf
3 Martina Navratilova
4 Margaret Court
5 Chris Evert
6 Billie Jean King
7 Monica Seles
8 Venus Williams
9 Justine Henin
10 Evonne Goolagong
11 Martina Hingis
12 Maria Sharapova
13 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
14 Kim Clijsters
15 Lindsay Davenport
16 Virginia Wade
17 Jennifer Capriati
18 Tracy Austin
19 Hana Mandlikova
20 Gabriela Sabatini
21 Amelie Mauresmo
22 Victoria Azarenka
23 Angelique Kerber
24 Caroline Wozniacki
25 Li Na

Top 5 is pretty much as I would have it.

 

[El Dude]

My knowledge of WTA history is far more limited than it is of the ATP, but my first sense is that I also agree with the top 5, with the caveat that Court is hard to rank - in a similar sense that Rosewall and Laver are. I want her after Serena, Graf, and Navratilova, but I think she's interchangeable with Evert.

The only other issue I have with the top 10 is that I'd rank Henin above Venus, for two reasons: One, she accomplished a similar amount in terms of records, but in a far shorter career. Two, she was the best player in the world for a time, something Venus never really was. Compare:

VENUS: 49 titles, 760-223 (77%), 7 Slams, no YE1, 11 weeks at #1
HENIN: 43 titles, 582-116 (82%), 7 Slams, 3 YE1 including 117 weeks at #1

To me those weeks at #1 are the biggest gap. The title count is close enough, the Slams are the same, they both won the Olympic Gold, the year-end championship, similar premier titles (9 for Venus, 10 for Henin). But again, Henin was #1 for over two calendar years worth of weeks, while Venus was for just a few months - and in many more years of play.

 

[El Dude]

It is also interesting to note just how much more top-heavy the WTA has been. You have a first tier of the top 5, who were all as or nearly as dominant as just about any man has ever been; then a second tier from #6 to Hingis at #11, and then a steep drop-off with Sharapova and the rest of the pack, after which it gets harder to order players.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This list is heavily tilted due to recency bias. Helen Wills is the Goatess and she is not even in your top 25. This is completely bogus. HWM has 19 grand slams won. Now, you may say Serena, Court, etc have more. But, you got to look at HWM's winning percentage. She simply does not lose. Also, she did not rack up slams at AO like MC when no one showed up.
Also, she did not play at the time when you were just playing one match to defend the title.

If you simply make her play all GSs without missing any during the period in which she played and calculated the number of GSs she would have won, maintaining her title winning % in comparison to tournaments entered, it is more than Court's count.

"During the 17-year period from 1922 through 1938, Wills entered 24 Grand Slam singles events, winning 19, finishing second three times, and defaulting twice as a result of her appendectomy" Note that defaulting basically means withdrawing before the match has started, not losing or not retiring. So, in other words she has never lost before the finals in each and every one of the GS she played. That record will never ever be beaten by a multislam winner.

She won 13 of 19 GS without losing a set in the entire tourney. She held the No. 1 world ranking for eight years and did not lose a set while amassing a 180- match winning streak from 1927 to 1933. That is the ultimate dominance.

 

[El Dude]

@GameSetAndMath, you missed the "Open Era" part. This is the other half of the Tennis.com list that was discussed in the ATP forum.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

@GameSetAndMath, you missed the "Open Era" part. This is the other half of the Tennis.com list that was discussed in the ATP forum.

Oh, ok. I stand corrected. But, I still am upset that folks are not giving enough credit to HWM.

I will get back to the topic of the thread later.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with top three. But, I would put Chrissy before Court. Court racked up too many AO title when nobody was coming there during Christmas time. It helped her to be from Australia.

After all Chrissy and Martina have the same GS count in singles. Why put one of them above MC and not the other.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, ok. I stand corrected. But, I still am upset that folks are not giving enough credit to HWM.

I will get back to the topic of the thread later.

Yeah, I hear you about HWM. In some ways she is to women's tennis what Bill Tilden was to men's, although Tilden wasn't as unbeatable. Suzanne Lenglen is another one worth mentioning, with a 98% career won-loss record! She played 348 matches and only lost 7 of them. Crazy.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yeah, I hear you about HWM. In some ways she is to women's tennis what Bill Tilden was to men's, although Tilden wasn't as unbeatable. Suzanne Lenglen is another one worth mentioning, with a 98% career won-loss record! She played 348 matches and only lost 7 of them. Crazy.

But, Suzanne won only 8 GS compared to 19 of HWM. I am unable to get hold of HWM's career won-loss record. Also, Suzanne has lost three times in GS before finals. But, HWM has never lost before finals in any GS in which she played.

Also Suzanne played at least in part during those old times when defending champion has to just play one match. She won three Wimbledons by playing just one match each time.

 

[El Dude]

Of course. I'm not saying Lenglen was as great, just pointing out that she's another interesting name to add to the discussion, especially as pertains to high won-loss records.

Moody was 398-35 (92%) according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Matches_played/won

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Of course. I'm not saying Lenglen was as great, just pointing out that she's another interesting name to add to the discussion, especially as pertains to high won-loss records.

Moody was 398-35 (92%) according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Matches_played/won

Oh yes, certainly suzanee is interesting too. Actually, she has the record for the longest winning streak 182 matches spread over from 1921 to 1926 beating out HWM by 2 matches. But, HWM did not even lose a set in her streak of 180 matches.

 

[lomaha]

I think it's an impossible comparison because it is much harder today to be in the top and win compared to just 20 years ago. The game has improved so much and so many more people make it their living, trains harder etc. And I think it's a joke, that because you can win seven matches in a row regardless off who you meet is counted better than staying on top most of the year.

 

[britbox]

This list is heavily tilted due to recency bias. Helen Wills is the Goatess and she is not even in your top 25. This is completely bogus. HWM has 19 grand slams won. Now, you may say Serena, Court, etc have more. But, you got to look at HWM's winning percentage. She simply does not lose. Also, she did not rack up slams at AO like MC when no one showed up.
Also, she did not play at the time when you were just playing one match to defend the title.

If you simply make her play all GSs without missing any during the period in which she played and calculated the number of GSs she would have won, maintaining her title winning % in comparison to tournaments entered, it is more than Court's count.

"During the 17-year period from 1922 through 1938, Wills entered 24 Grand Slam singles events, winning 19, finishing second three times, and defaulting twice as a result of her appendectomy" Note that defaulting basically means withdrawing before the match has started, not losing or not retiring. So, in other words she has never lost before the finals in each and every one of the GS she played. That record will never ever be beaten by a multislam winner.

She won 13 of 19 GS without losing a set in the entire tourney. She held the No. 1 world ranking for eight years and did not lose a set while amassing a 180- match winning streak from 1927 to 1933. That is the ultimate dominance.

Seriously fella... are we supposed to watch church fete tennis like this...



and put HWM in the same bracket of elite athletes like Steffi Graf and Serena Williams?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Seriously fella... are we supposed to watch church fete tennis like this...

and put HWM in the same bracket of elite athletes like Steffi Graf and Serena Williams?

Yes, the tennis kind of looks lame. However, that was the tennis played at that time. The important point that you are missing is that lame or not she was the queen for six years. The other "church ladies" could not come anywhere near her. She dominated all catholic nuns. So, there is some champion qualities in her that is to be admired.

This is why it is difficult to compare across the era. Recently someone posted a video of some old men's matches (not very old, late 70s or early 80s). I watched that video. The game looked very slow (due to wooden racquets). But, that is also tennis. Do you want to discredit everyone who played in wooden racquets era.

The key point is that all your contemporaries have access to the same technologies, live by the same tennis rules of that era and consider whatever was considered important in that era. So, the only thing that we should go by is how well a champion in an era dominated the others of the same era. Going by that HWM is the greatest dominator.

Remember she did not accumulate GS titles by winning AO when no one showed up there.

Also, remember that she did not accumulate GS titles by playing in an era where the champion of the previous year needs to play only one match to defend the title either.

If you just discard your current bias and watch the very same video that you posted, you will realize that it is actually a decent match. The trouble starts only if you are comparing with the current era. Who is to say that if you transplant HWM in the modern era and give her access to current technologies, training and coaching she would not do better than the current players?

 

[Fiero425]

I agree with top three. But, I would put Chrissy before Court. Court racked up too many AO title when nobody was coming there during Christmas time. It helped her to be from Australia.

After all Chrissy and Martina have the same GS count in singles. Why put one of them above MC and not the other.

Martina and Margaret were more complete players and own a ton of doubles titles which is why Evert should be ranked behind them both! The only reason Graf is ahead is due to her singles prowess which is probably why I don't have that much regard for her play; coupled with Seles getting stabbed allowing Steffi free reign when no one challenged her but Arantxa for a time in the mid 90's! :whistle:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

IMO doubles titles should play no role (except may be as a tie breaker), in evaluating the degree of goatessness of players.

 

[Fiero425]

IMO doubles titles should play no role (except may be as a tie breaker), in evaluating the degree of goatessness of players.

If it was a close call and there are just a handful of major doubles titles I'd agree, but we're talking about GOAT-dom where Martina's won multiple titles with many partners; the last approaching 50 y.o. at the USO in '06 winning MxD with Bryan! She also has the Box Set completed in '03 with Paez which few can say they own! That elevates her BIG TIME IMB; even above Margaret! :whistle:

 

[britbox]

Yes, the tennis kind of looks lame. However, that was the tennis played at that time. The important point that you are missing is that lame or not she was the queen for six years. The other "church ladies" could not come anywhere near her. She dominated all catholic nuns. So, there is some champion qualities in her that is to be admired.

This is why it is difficult to compare across the era. Recently someone posted a video of some old men's matches (not very old, late 70s or early 80s). I watched that video. The game looked very slow (due to wooden racquets). But, that is also tennis. Do you want to discredit everyone who played in wooden racquets era.

The key point is that all your contemporaries have access to the same technologies, live by the same tennis rules of that era and consider whatever was considered important in that era. So, the only thing that we should go by is how well a champion in an era dominated the others of the same era. Going by that HWM is the greatest dominator.

Remember she did not accumulate GS titles by winning AO when no one showed up there.

Also, remember that she did not accumulate GS titles by playing in an era where the champion of the previous year needs to play only one match to defend the title either.

If you just discard your current bias and watch the very same video that you posted, you will realize that it is actually a decent match. The trouble starts only if you are comparing with the current era. Who is to say that if you transplant HWM in the modern era and give her access to current technologies, training and coaching she would not do better than the current players?

I take the point to an extent GSM.... I've considered the same argument with the likes of Laver, Rosewall etc... but at least you can join the dots.... you'll see Laver being competitive with Borg in money exhos... then Borg/Mac... Mac/Lendl, Lendl/Sampras... it's an easy trail to follow.

You could give a modern day player a wooden racquet and put them in Laver's era and still think Laver might be competitive...

Would I think the same if I gave Serena Williams a wooden racquet and put her in HWM's era? Not really... it would be rout. I could give Serena Williams a frying pan and she'd still beat HWM. The gulf is that HUGE, I just can't take HWM seriously as a GOAT candidate. There are juniors at my own club who could probably beat her... with a wooden racquet.

 

[atttomole]

In my opinion Evert should be above Court. I don't see how Court can be better than Evert, and yet behind Navratilova, because I consider Navratilova and Evert to be very close.