PDA

View Full Version : SLAM STATS: Keeping Pace w/the Greats (1st, 5th, 10th)


Sir Stefwhit
Mar 9th, 2008, 11:25 AM
I compiled a listing of some of the top players, both past and present, who've all won at least one Major. Instead of looking at how young (or old) each player was when they won their slams, I'm focusing on how much previous slam experience each player had prior to winning their FIRST, THIRD, FIFTH, and TENTH slam titles.

Since everyone doesn't start playing tennis at the same age I've never been comfortable with age as the measure for early success on tour. A better measure would be something that could be held constant for all the players.

A more fair way to draw comparisons would be to look at the amount of slams played prior to winning a slam (slam experience). This approach takes into account players who couldn't participate in certain years because of age eligibility rules, injuries, or players who turned pro when they were older.

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 9th, 2008, 11:27 AM
.The number listed by each player tells you how many slams the player participated in before winning their First, Third, Fifth, or Tenth slam.

(It's almost impossible to do these sorts of lists without making a few mistakes, so be sure to let me know if you see any)

FIRST SLAM TITLE:
*Margaret Court: 2
*Maureen Connolly: 3
Seles: 4
Tracy Austin: 6
Sharapova: 7
S.Williams: 7
Sanchez-Vicario: 7
Evert: 8
Hingis: 9
Kuznetsova: 10
Graf: 12
Mary Peirce: 12
V.Williams: 13
Kvititova: 13
Ivanovic: 14
Henin: 15
Navratilova: 15
Clijsters: 22
Azarenka: 25
Davenport: 26
Capriatti: 29
Mauresmo: 32
Stosur: 34
Schiavone: 39
Novotna: 44

Hingis always get noted for being the youngest slam winner- and while that's an admirable thing to accomplish at such a young age, she was able to play 8 slams before winning her first. I think it's more impressive that after playing in only 3 slams, Monica Seles was able to win in just her fourth slam that she ever played in.

Also interesting that Serena, Sharapova, and Sanchez-Vicario all won their first slam with less slam experience than Graf had when she won her first slam.

THIRD SLAM TITLE:
*Maureen Connolly: 5
*Margaret Court: 7
Seles: 8
Evert: 11
Hingis: 12
S.Williams: 16
Graf: 16
V.Williams: 17
Henin: 18
Sharapova: 21
Navratilova: 25
Sanchez-Vicario: 26
Davenport: 31
Clijsters: 31
Capriatti: 33

What a difference between Seles and Hingis compared to both Linday and Capriatti.

FIFTH SLAM TITLE:
*Maureen Connolly: 7
Seles: 10
Margaret Court: 10
Evert: 15
Hingis: 17
S.Williams: 18
Graf: 18
Henin: 25
Navratilova: 27
V.Williams: 32

Interesting that at this point both Serena and Hingis were both paced ahead of Navratilova who ended her career with 18 slams.

TENTH SLAM TITLE:
**Margaret Court: 19
Evert: 24
Graf: 29
Navratilova: 35
Serena: 37

It took Mauresmo 32 slam appearances before she could win her first and in less slams played Steffi and Chris Evert were able to win 10!!!

So how much total slam experience do the current player have as of 2010 Wimbledon:
(will update later, too lazy)
50 Slams played for Venus
43 Slams played for Serena
34 Slams played for Henin
32 Slams played for Kuznetsova
29 Slams played for Clijsters
29 Slams played for Sharapova

*slams won BEFORE the open era
**some won both BEFORE and AFTER the open era
(Thanks tennisvideos and OsloErik for the stats on Connolly and Court.)

Serenidad.
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:03 PM
Mademoiselle Seles. What a fucking travesty. She should be on at least the tenth GS win list...

cherseles
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:15 PM
Thanks. very interesting.
i stole it to a Chinese tennis site, put your name.:worship:

hingis-seles
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:56 PM
Interesting perspective and I agree that this is a more fruitful way of looking at Slam success early on. Age is important when considering how mature a player has to be to win a Slam.

Thanks for compiling the list.

Monirena Wiles
Mar 9th, 2008, 02:11 PM
Do you know if Seles was able to win a slam faster than anyone else on tour since the open era? I would think that doing it after 4 slams would be a record.

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 9th, 2008, 02:59 PM
Do you know if Seles was able to win a slam faster than anyone else on tour since the open era? I would think that doing it after 4 slams would be a record.
I have no idea, to be honest. Maybe one of the stat gurus on the board will know. Whether it is or it isn't she was clearly on pace like no one in the history of the game. Too bad she couldn't have won that one final against ASV at the French, then she'd at least have ten.

Dave.
Mar 9th, 2008, 03:10 PM
In her first ever grand slam, Monica went all the way to the SF and had a great match with Steffi before going down. That has got to be one of the best ever debuts.

Kart
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:05 PM
Capriati and Mauresmo are evidence that no one with the skills to win a slam should ever give up.

Dave.
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:31 PM
Perhaps another interesting criteria would be too look at how many titles they had won before winning their slam. That would give you an idea of how successful they had been on the tour before winning a slam.

-VSR-
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:21 PM
In her first ever grand slam, Monica went all the way to the SF and had a great match with Steffi before going down. That has got to be one of the best ever debuts.

Venus made the US Open final in only her third ever grand slam played. The generation of players from 1990-2000 were some of the best ever. :bowdown:

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:27 PM
I have no idea, to be honest. Maybe one of the stat gurus on the board will know. Whether it is or it isn't she was clearly on pace like no one in the history of the game. Too bad she couldn't have won that one final against ASV at the French, then she'd at least have ten.

Well... shes at least tied with Nadal... whose never lost at the FO... he did however compete @ the Austrailian US Open, and then the Austrailian again before he played the FO.....

venus_rulez
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Venus made the US Open final in only her third ever grand slam played. The generation of players from 1990-2000 were some of the best ever. :bowdown:


I was going to mention that. I would think that would have to be up there for the soonest to make a slam final.

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Venus made the US Open final in only her third ever grand slam played. The generation of players from 1990-2000 were some of the best ever. :bowdown:

yes, they were.... I read an article awhile about released in 94 on venus and saying in a time where "tennis phenoms" are popping up all over the place, venus williams is undeafeted in junior play.... and to think after that Serena, Justine, Kim were still to come...

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:10 PM
If I'm inspired maybe I'll get around to listing what number of slam each player listed is currently on. We all know Sharapova is currently on her 21st, and she got there before Navratilova did, so who knows...

bwahahahahaha
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:29 PM
Hingis played two years-eight slams- before winning her first at age 16 :eek: Such a mature game at such a young age. Unbelievable.

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 10th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Hingis played two years-eight slams- before winning her first at age 16 :eek: Such a mature game at such a young age. Unbelievable.
That is an amazing feat, but what's interesting is that before I did this I hadn't realized she was actually that experienced with slam play. I thought that she had played 3 maybe 4 at most, prior to her first win, but she had some real experience under her belt. It's still amazing that she had the game she had for her age. A pure power game would be easier to master at a young age than the kind of game she had.

random fan
Mar 10th, 2008, 11:16 PM
Hingis was a tennis prodigy; alike to one of those massive stars that are very bright, but have very short lifespan

Olórin
Mar 10th, 2008, 11:21 PM
That is an amazing feat, but what's interesting is that before I did this I hadn't realized she was actually that experienced with slam play. I thought that she had played 3 maybe 4 at most, prior to her first win, but she had some real experience under her belt. It's still amazing that she had the game she had for her age. A pure power game would be easier to master at a young age than the kind of game she had.

It's funny because when Steffi lost at that AO, it was the first time she has lost at a slam in over two years, and there was Martina the little 16 year old, the automatic favourite for the title in Steffi's absence. People were saying how well she dealt with the pressure of being the favourite so young, but she had the seed to justify it.

DA FOREHAND
Mar 11th, 2008, 12:52 AM
It's funny because when Steffi lost at that AO, it was the first time she has lost at a slam in over two years, and there was Martina the little 16 year old, the automatic favourite for the title in Steffi's absence. People were saying how well she dealt with the pressure of being the favourite so young, but she had the seed to justify it.

Not to mention she did a head job on Ameleie because she was scared after witnessing Amelie's demolition of Lindsay.

BuTtErFrEnA
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:04 AM
excellent way of looking at it...age truly can distort things

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 11th, 2008, 08:29 PM
If I'm inspired maybe I'll get around to listing what number of slam each player listed is currently on. We all know Sharapova is currently on her 21st, and she got there before Navratilova did, so who knows...

updated on original post

tennisfan5
Mar 11th, 2008, 09:14 PM
Not to mention she did a head job on Ameleie because she was scared after witnessing Amelie's demolition of Lindsay.

that was 2 years later--in '99. I believe the reference was to her first slam in '97

BarsonlyOne
Mar 11th, 2008, 09:50 PM
Hingis was a tennis prodigy; alike to one of those massive stars that are very bright, but have very short lifespan


so sad...:sad::sad: she had such an amazing career nonetheless. 40 titles by the age of 22, 209 weeks already at #1 at 22, 5 slams by age 18(cant believe she didnt win another one).

Mikey B
Mar 11th, 2008, 09:55 PM
another serena-maria comparrasion!!

thanks for this, interesting read...

OsloErik
Mar 11th, 2008, 10:11 PM
In her first ever grand slam, Monica went all the way to the SF and had a great match with Steffi before going down. That has got to be one of the best ever debuts.

One of the best ever for sure, right up there with Chris Evert reaching the semifinal of the US Open in her first year, and not losing before the semifinals until 34 slams later.

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 11th, 2008, 10:31 PM
another serena-maria comparrasion!!

thanks for this, interesting read...

Why would you say that :confused: I listed over 20 different players and the last thing on my mind was contrasting Serena and Maria. If anything, I had Hingis and Seles in mind when I did this. We always hear about them referred to as the young phenoms and both have done things at younger ages then most other players. So I wanted to see how they actually compared to the rest of the field in a more fair way to contrast. To my surprise Seles does even better this way, not so much the case for Hingis though.

Yes this does show Serena in a good light comparatively speaking, but it's also good for Masha. Sharapova is actually not too far of pace with the legends who have the amount of slams we can't envision todays players achieving. This just shows that they're not too far off and it's not just about age.

auntie janie
Mar 11th, 2008, 11:58 PM
I would love to see the comparable stats for Maureen Connolly, the original Teen Queen of tennis.

Tennisstar86
Mar 12th, 2008, 12:03 AM
another serena-maria comparrasion!!

thanks for this, interesting read...

...I didnt even take Serena/ Sharapova into the equation of these stats... as they arent at the top of any of them....

Dave.
Mar 12th, 2008, 12:28 AM
Not to mention she did a head job on Ameleie because she was scared after witnessing Amelie's demolition of Lindsay.

wtf? Firstly, Amelie beat Lindsay at the Australian Open in 1999. The score was 4-6 7-5 7-5. I don't know what you consider to be a demolition. Seriously. :o:o

Natash.
Mar 12th, 2008, 02:45 AM
I believe Majoli won her first and only slam on her 14th slam? Just a name to add. :lol:

Monirena Wiles
Mar 25th, 2008, 02:58 PM
I did not know that Navratilova was such a late bloomer. I thought she was dominating a lot more when she was younger. She is proof that you do not have to have success right away to have a legendary career.

hablo
Mar 25th, 2008, 03:34 PM
Capriati and Mauresmo are evidence that no one with the skills to win a slam should ever give up.

Exactly. :angel:

Monirena Wiles
May 4th, 2008, 04:02 AM
I would love to see the comparable stats for Maureen Connolly, the original Teen Queen of tennis.

Me too! These are my favorite kinds of threads but they never include the old players. I should not complain though because he did include a lot of retired players this time.

Sir Stefwhit
Feb 23rd, 2009, 05:00 PM
TENTH SLAM TITLE:
Evert: 24
Graf: 29
Navratilova: 35
Serena: 37

I didn't update anything else, too lazy at the moment...

vwfan
Feb 23rd, 2009, 05:19 PM
Venus made the US Open final in only her third ever grand slam played. The generation of players from 1990-2000 were some of the best ever. :bowdown:and U.S. Open debut. :eek:

Seles stats impressive for sure. Loved her! She was my fave, before Venus. and she was Venus' fave, too. :)

miffedmax
Feb 23rd, 2009, 05:23 PM
Capriati and Mauresmo are like two false beacons of hope, cruelly drawing me into the Shoals of Eternal Despair.

youizahoe
Feb 23rd, 2009, 05:58 PM
You should add:

How many finals they had before winning a slam.

faboozadoo15
Feb 23rd, 2009, 06:25 PM
I did not know that Navratilova was such a late bloomer. I thought she was dominating a lot more when she was younger. She is proof that you do not have to have success right away to have a legendary career.

She was a massive talent, a head-case, and out of shape :tape:

Hard to believe now.

She was really enjoying herself some American capitalism at the time.

spencercarlos
Feb 23rd, 2009, 07:05 PM
It's funny because when Steffi lost at that AO, it was the first time she has lost at a slam in over two years, and there was Martina the little 16 year old, the automatic favourite for the title in Steffi's absence. People were saying how well she dealt with the pressure of being the favourite so young, but she had the seed to justify it.
That was after Steffi, Arantxa and Conchita lost, player that had won slams and had more experience than Martina Hingis and the next player avaiable with a slam under her belt was unseeded Mary Pierce, that made Hingis the favorite for the title.

new-york
Feb 23rd, 2009, 07:15 PM
great way to put things.

it's amazing that Seles managed to won her first slam having played so few of them before.

Hingis was playing top level soooooo early. :worship:

hablo
Feb 23rd, 2009, 10:34 PM
Capriati and Mauresmo are like two false beacons of hope, cruelly drawing me into the Shoals of Eternal Despair.

Awww. :lol::hug:

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 10th, 2009, 09:54 PM
You should add:

How many finals they had before winning a slam.That's too much work, but feel free to add that info if you like.

I was just trying to point out another way of looking at things, a way that's weighted more equally than age. We tend to always compare by age and I just felt that since players start at different times that it wasn't the best way to compare.

OsloErik
Mar 11th, 2009, 07:25 AM
Do you know if Seles was able to win a slam faster than anyone else on tour since the open era? I would think that doing it after 4 slams would be a record.

One of the random Aussie players might have won their slam sooner, but nobody cares about them.

The only player I've found is Gustavo Kuerten, who won the 1997 French in his 3rd slam appearance. It was also his first ever tour title.

OsloErik
Mar 11th, 2009, 07:30 AM
She was a massive talent, a head-case, and out of shape :tape:

Hard to believe now.

She was really enjoying herself some American capitalism at the time.

I KNOW!!! Really shocking what a difference it made. Before the transformation, she was forced to play her opponent's game, and that won't win you much against the Evert's of the world. And five years later, she imposed her game on just about everyone.

TennisViewer531
Mar 11th, 2009, 10:29 AM
Martina Hingis was really a phenomenon back then... winning Grand Slams at such a young age.

tennisvideos
Mar 11th, 2009, 12:12 PM
I quickly looked up Maureen Connolly and Margaret Court on Wikipedia but unfortunately it doesn't have the data for Maureen. But I am sure someone from the Blast From the Past forums would know.

But, I was able to get Court's singles data and she was a phenom as well, and probably ranks equal or at the top in each category. Although I think Connolly might lead them all in reality!

Margaret Court:
1st GS at her 2nd attempt (as an 18yo)
3rd GS from her first 7 attempts
5th GS from her first 10 attempts
10th GS from her first 19 attempts

OsloErik
Mar 11th, 2009, 11:23 PM
Maureen Connolly:

1st GS at her 3rd attempt (age 16, US Championships 1951)
3rd GS at her 5th attempt (age 17, French Championships 1952)
5th GS at her 7th attempt (age 17, US Championships 1952)

She didn't win a 10th event because her career ended when her leg got crushed, but she won her 9th slam in her 11th attempt. Basically, of the 11 slams she played, the only ones she lost were her first two US Championships when she was 14 and 15.

tennisvideos
Mar 12th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Maureen Connolly:

1st GS at her 3rd attempt (age 16, US Championships 1951)
3rd GS at her 5th attempt (age 17, French Championships 1952)
5th GS at her 7th attempt (age 17, US Championships 1952)

She didn't win a 10th event because her career ended when her leg got crushed, but she won her 9th slam in her 11th attempt. Basically, of the 11 slams she played, the only ones she lost were her first two US Championships when she was 14 and 15.

Astonishing! It would be nice if Connolly and Court were added to the front page in light of their acievements - they are often overlooked in these achievement threads.

OsloErik
Mar 12th, 2009, 07:46 PM
Astonishing! It would be nice if Connolly and Court were added to the front page in light of their acievements - they are often overlooked in these achievement threads.

Court's early career wasn't during the Open Era, and Connolly's entire career wasn't during the Open Era. Margaret Court's opponent in her first four Australian Open finals has a career-high ranking of #7, and was pretty much the next-highest ranked player at the Aussie besides Court.

There's a reason we talk about Open Era and pre-Open Era.

tennisvideos
Mar 13th, 2009, 06:12 AM
Court's early career wasn't during the Open Era, and Connolly's entire career wasn't during the Open Era. Margaret Court's opponent in her first four Australian Open finals has a career-high ranking of #7, and was pretty much the next-highest ranked player at the Aussie besides Court.

There's a reason we talk about Open Era and pre-Open Era.

Sorry - but what a load of bolloks. It doesn't matter if it's open era or pre-open era for the women. All the leading women played the tour in both eras - it was only in the mens tour that the top players weren't eligible to play the Slams (the ones that were professionals and prior to 1968).

So what if Court won 3 Aussie Open titles to begin her Slam success. She still won them and they are still facts. And if these threads had a grain of integrity about them then the facts would be included. And let's not forget that Court did beat the World #1 at the time - Maria Bueno - on her way to her first GS singles success. But of course, that doesn't count either (because it wasn't in the final or some other D grade reason). :rolleyes:

And just to add some more facts - 1960 AO included Bueno #1 and Christine Truman world #4. 1962 also includee world #2 Darlene Hard and Yola Ramirez #6.

And to think you wouldn't include Connolly because it was pre-open era. How condescending. Sorry, but I will say it like it is.

I guess Billie-Jean King, Maria Bueno, Anne Jones, Lesley Turner, Darlene Hard, Rosie Casals, Doris Hart, Lousie Brough, Beverly Baker etc were all hacks. :eek:

OsloErik
Mar 13th, 2009, 07:21 AM
First, your welcome for me doing your legwork and finding Maureen Connolly's stats to put on here.

Second, where on EARTH did I imply they were hacks? You can get all self righteous and sound bitter if you want, but considering that every player on the OP list is an Open Era player, I'm sticking with Open Era players.

I've never implied that slam wins before the Open Era don't count; I just don't particularly find the pre-Open Era a good indicator of the experience vs. age debate.

tennisvideos
Mar 13th, 2009, 10:53 AM
I do appreciate you updating Connolly's record here. Many thanks.

One thing I have never been a fan of, however, is when someone talks down a champion's achievements with mis-information.

Finally, your line "There's a reason we talk about Open Era and pre-Open Era" is very telling indeed, and could be construed as condescending. As I have said before, other than the fact there is more data around on the open era results, there is no other reason not to include pre-open players and their achievements in any discussion on women's tennis.

MrSerenaWilliams
Aug 11th, 2009, 12:31 AM
Serena's knee injury really derailed her career :sobbing:

Sir Stefwhit
Aug 11th, 2009, 01:07 AM
Serena's knee injury really derailed her career :sobbing:Missing a slam because of an injury is part of the reason I wanted to compare by using the amount of slams played. For some players they were able to play 12 slams in the span of three years- other players needed five years to play the same amount of slams. Serena has definitely been plagued by injuries but so too have Lindsay, Steffi, Monica, Jennifer- and so on.... If injuries weren't a factor I know for sure Steffi would have passed Margaret Court (even if what happened to Seles never happened).

fammmmedspin
Aug 11th, 2009, 01:25 AM
That's too much work, but feel free to add that info if you like.

I was just trying to point out another way of looking at things, a way that's weighted more equally than age. We tend to always compare by age and I just felt that since players start at different times that it wasn't the best way to compare.

The problem though works both ways - if you played GS at 13 and 14 you will look like a late developer with lots of early GS non-successes compared to someone who wins one of their early slams starting at 15 or 17. Jennifer gets hammered both ways - starts early and wins late. Steffi starts earlier than most too.

phelbyn
Aug 11th, 2009, 02:19 AM
Very cool data set! I think it would be interesting to analyse pre-Open Era women. I'm always fond of Helen Wills Moody.

She won 1 grand slam after playing in 2.
She won 3 grand slams after playing in 5.
She won 5 grand slams after playing in 9.
She won 10 grand slams after playing in 14.
She won 19 of 24 grand slams played!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From Wimbledon 1927 to Wimbledon 1933 she didn't lose a grand slam she played. That was 14 straight!!!

I totally get that this is a different time in tennis, but still the stats are incredible!

Sir Stefwhit
Aug 11th, 2009, 02:57 AM
The problem though works both ways - if you played GS at 13 and 14 you will look like a late developer with lots of early GS non-successes compared to someone who wins one of their early slams starting at 15 or 17. Jennifer gets hammered both ways - starts early and wins late. Steffi starts earlier than most too.
Why would a 13 year old look like a late bloomer compared to a 15 year old? People develop at different ages and for the most part the players that turned pro at an early age usually didn't play a lot of slams because in order to play a slam you have to have the ranking or be able to qualify to get in. If you have the necessary ranking or the talent to make it through qualies then the logic goes that you are comparable to any other player that has the ranking to play a slam.

Even your example of Steffi supports this. She turned pro at the age of 13 in 1982, but didn't play one full year of slams until 1988. In her first six years on tour she skipped 13 slams.

Nickk
Aug 11th, 2009, 06:22 AM
If Serena keeps winning the Slams like she has lately, she might surprise everyone. She's so close to Navratilova considering the 10th major. Serena's the type of player who'll be able to keep up with the world's top in her 30s. Go Serena (just leave Venus a few Slams, please!).

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 5th, 2010, 03:42 PM
# Of Slams played before winning their 13th
1. Evert played 32 slams before winning her 13th
2. Stefi played 34 slams before winning her 13th
3. Navrat played 42 before winning her 13th
4. Rena played 43 before winning her 13th slam

Serena is currently on Navratilova's pace, just one more slam played. Seeing that there on the same trajectory, it's not impossible seeing Serena catch her (and Chrissie, although Chrisie won her 13 with far fewer slams played).

thrust
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:59 PM
Court's early career wasn't during the Open Era, and Connolly's entire career wasn't during the Open Era. Margaret Court's opponent in her first four Australian Open finals has a career-high ranking of #7, and was pretty much the next-highest ranked player at the Aussie besides Court.

There's a reason we talk about Open Era and pre-Open Era.

In her first Australian Slam win Margreat beat Maria Bueno, the #1 ranked player in the world, in the quarter finals. The Open Era does NOT apply to Women's tennis, as there was NO women's Pro Tour. Open Era applies to Men's tennis in that the top players were playing on the Pro Tour, prior to 1968. ALL the top women players were eligible to play in all the Slams, once the French opened their tournamet to non French players in 1925. That is FACT, whether you care or not.

Cp6uja
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:21 PM
FIRST SLAM TITLE:
*Margaret Court: 2
*Maureen Connolly: 3
Seles: 4
Tracy Austin: 6
Sharapova: 7
S.Williams: 7
Sanchez-Vicario: 7
Evert: 8
Hingis: 9
Kuznetsova: 10
Graf: 12
Mary Peirce: 12
V.Williams: 13
Henin: 15
Navratilova: 15
Clijsters: 22
Davenport: 26
Capriatti: 29
Mauresmo: 32
Schiavone: 39
Novotna: 44
You should to update all 2010 changes, not only Serena related.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:19 PM
You should to update all 2010 changes, not only Serena related.Thanks. You're 100% correct- it's been updated.

Kunal
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:51 PM
nice work!

Sund7101
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:58 PM
Very interesting stats. Seles truly was an amazing phenom. We will never know what could have been.

Interesting to see Hingis's stats too, she was also so good when she was young.

Serena is on pace to catch Evert and Navratilova IMO.

Ryan
Jul 5th, 2010, 09:30 PM
Shouldn't age factor in too though? I mean, I think these stats are great, but you cant say someone is on the same trajectory without comparing ages IMO. Serena and Nav are only one slam "experience" apart, but how old was Nav when she played her 42nd Slam? If she was older than Serena, Serena's ahead of her - if she was younger, than Serena's behind her.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 5th, 2010, 09:56 PM
Shouldn't age factor in too though? I mean, I think these stats are great, but you cant say someone is on the same trajectory without comparing ages IMO. Serena and Nav are only one slam "experience" apart, but how old was Nav when she played her 42nd Slam? If she was older than Serena, Serena's ahead of her - if she was younger, than Serena's behind her.
Ryan age is one factor of time and slam experience is another. You can argue the same data across two different time lines.

Ryan
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:01 PM
Ryan age is one factor of time and slam experience is another. You can argue the same data across two different time lines.



I just think that you get more accurate data when you use both, it was just a question.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:17 AM
I just think that you get more accurate data when you use both, it was just a question.That kind of goes without saying, the more data you generally use, the better story you can tell.

Everyone always mentions age and for the most part that's what is focused on most. So as alternative view, and not as an opposing one, I wanted to focus on slam experience.

I'm not saying this is a better way to look at things, I'm just saying it's just an interesting one and worthy of a discussion independent of age.

Monirena Wiles
Jul 6th, 2010, 02:31 PM
Very interesting stats. Seles truly was an amazing phenom. We will never know what could have been.

Interesting to see Hingis's stats too, she was also so good when she was young.

Serena is on pace to catch Evert and Navratilova IMO.Seles and Hingis were the two best youngster of all time. Even going by these stats and not age you can see that it didn't take them long at all to start accumulating slams. Hingis burned out early of natural causes, maybe Seles would have to, but there is a better chance she could have kept going a lot longer had she been allowed to. :sad:

Sir Stefwhit
Aug 5th, 2012, 07:57 AM
I added Kvititova, Azarenka, and Clijsters...

The 2nd Law
Aug 5th, 2012, 09:24 AM
I added Kvititova, Azarenka, and Clijsters...

Ivanovic is also missing :p

thrust
Aug 5th, 2012, 02:01 PM
Court's early career wasn't during the Open Era, and Connolly's entire career wasn't during the Open Era. Margaret Court's opponent in her first four Australian Open finals has a career-high ranking of #7, and was pretty much the next-highest ranked player at the Aussie besides Court.

There's a reason we talk about Open Era and pre-Open Era.

THE FACT IS that in Court's first slam win, the 1960 Australian, she beat the #1 ranked player in the world Maria Bueno in the quarter finals. She also beat Bueno in a final and BJK in two other Australian Championships, one in a final another in a semi final. Every time the top players came to Australia, except once whe she was returning from a years absence, Margreat won.

Sir Stefwhit
Aug 5th, 2012, 02:51 PM
Ivanovic is also missing :p

Thanks- just added her as well...