Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North, South & Third Pole
What will it take for Serena to be considered the Greatest ever?
She's not going to win 25 Grand Slams singles titles. No. And for the purpose of this thread, let's talk only about singles.
But then Steffi Graf only won 22 and a heck of a lot of people consider her above Margaret Court. Heck, even Martina Navratilova who won 18 only compared to 24 for Court, is considered by many as the Greatest ever.
Serena's not there yet but she's also not finished with the game. So standing right now with 11 Grand Slam singles titles: 4 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 3 Wimbledons and 3 US Opens. She held all Grand Slam titles at one point by completing a non-calendar Grand Slam in 2002-03.
So if Graf who won less than Court and Navratilova who won less than Court can be considered the Greatest ever, at what number then can Serena enter that argument?
Or is this simply a double standard where you say numbers are everything, Serena must have Graf and Navratilova like figures to be considered equal but they do not need Court like figures to be considered equal.
How do we also assess the level of competition getting tougher and tougher as the years have gone by? Women's tennis as a sport has become more and more popular over the years with more prizemoney, more media attention. Also comes with increased competition. How do we also put this into perspective?
People are already calling Federer with 15 Grand Slam singles titles the Greatest ever. He has never held all four slams at the same time (no calendar nor non-calendar Grand Slam) compared to Rod Laver who won the Grand Slam twice. Is Federer the greatest because he's the latest? Obviously, not just because of that but surely it has something to do with it.
Please leave this in GM, as I want to see what people use as their standards or doubles standards.
Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Reef, Aurora
Dancing and Skating through Life