PDA

View Full Version : What will it take for Serena to be considered the Greatest ever?


Sam L
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:01 AM
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.

Ziggy Starduck
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:25 AM
I get confused whenever I see the title 'greatest ever' appear, anyways to answer the question it kind of depends what era you became enthralled in tennis and whether you have the ability to remove your fan bias? If a 10 year old starting watching tennis in the last few weeks then they will say Serena Williams because that's all they've seen. Going on slams only I would suggest Margaret Court. I highly doubt her record is going to be broken because the competition and technology used is vastly different now than when Margaret was playing, I just can't see anyone ever being a single dominant figure over the current competition.

Sam L
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:29 AM
I get confused whenever I see the title 'greatest ever' appear, anyways to answer the question it kind of depends what era you became enthralled in tennis and whether you have the ability to remove your fan bias? If a 10 year old starting watching tennis in the last few weeks then they will say Serena Williams because that's all they've seen. Going on slams only I would suggest Margaret Court. I highly doubt her record is going to be broken because the competition and technology used is vastly different now than when Margaret was playing, I just can't see anyone ever being a single dominant figure over the current competition.

Your post is full of contradictions but at least you got it right with your last words. I think that given what we know regarding the current competition, it's unrealistic for Serena to get Court, Graf or even Navratilova like figures. So I'm trying to figure out what is a realistic figure she needs to be considered the Greatest Ever. 11 is not enough. I'm a fan but I'm willing to admit this.

If she wins 16 by the end of her career, I'll say she's the Greatest ever. That's 2 short of Navratilova and Evert who together virtually dominated the tour. Serena's had more rivals at least through Venus and Justine and possibly with Sharapova in the future.

darkangel23
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:38 AM
Honestly although she reached very much in her career, I can not imagine her being considered as the greatest player ever...

crazillo
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:42 AM
Rod Laver recently said players can be considered the greatest of an era, but hardly of all time. I would agree on that.

Valanga
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:04 AM
She might be the greatest player among 1980s-1990s
but GOAT? HELL NO.

SM
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:06 AM
She needs at least 2 more slams than Graf to compensate for Graf's ridiculous amount of weeks at #1

Golovinjured.
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:14 AM
She needs to build a time machine, go back to 1999, and win all the slams that she should have. Singles, doubles and mixed.

Kart
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:21 AM
There are only two ways of deciding who is the best ever:

1. Objectively with statistics.

2. Subjectively having watched all of the above play against their peers.

I tend to favour the second option myself.

Thanx4nothin
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:23 AM
It would take a hell of a lot. Serena LACKS in the areas where Navratilova and Graf EXCEL.
Weeks at no.1, titles outside the slams......

On her side however is the fact that some in the GOAT converstaion have said her level of tennis is GOAT.

If she gets 18 slams, I would consider her AS worthy of discussion with the others up there, she is already top 5 anyway IMHO.

Navratil
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:29 AM
Talking about the all-time-greatest most people just look at the open-era because all the time before that is difficult to compare to the competition today.

And Navratilova and Graf share (almost) all of the all-time-records: Most GS, most Wimbledon, longest winning streak, longest time at the number 1 spot, most tournaments won, most finals, etc. etc. etc.

There's no doubt about: Serena needs play another deceade to be compared with these two.

But she might do that! :-)

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:31 AM
With all the injuries she had in 2005 -2006, I would have never thought that one day she would win 11 GS titles :awww:

Keep on performing well Serena :kiss:

Ackms421
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:33 AM
If she won five or six in a row, that would put her in the argument. Although, that would also put her within sneezing distance of Navratilova/Evert in slam totals so...

I think she could get 18 slams, which would certainly provide a legitimate claim to her being included in the GOAT discussion. She also has had quite an interesting career, with an odd lull in between her two dominant periods; I'm not sure anyone has done this before, so with a more respectable slam total, she's in the discussion I think.

Thanx4nothin
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:42 AM
If she won five or six in a row, that would put her in the argument. Although, that would also put her within sneezing distance of Navratilova/Evert in slam totals so...

I think she could get 18 slams, which would certainly provide a legitimate claim to her being included in the GOAT discussion. She also has had quite an interesting career, with an odd lull in between her two dominant periods; I'm not sure anyone has done this before, so with a more respectable slam total, she's in the discussion I think.

Yeah I pretty much agree with you, Although I don't necessarily think she needs to win 5/6 in a row, if she could win the US and AO again, hence winning 3 in a row and 5/6, she'd have another lofty achievement at the slams to add to her resume.

Wojtek
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:43 AM
again and again for her fans she is GOAT now. She won't be greatest ever. She will behind Graf, Court or Navratilova in many stats

miffedmax
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:58 AM
There's hardly a universal consensus that Graf is the greatest ever. Court, Evert, Navratilova, (count me among hers) Wills Moody, all have their supporters, and all can marshal valid stats to support their candidate and valid criticisms to attack the others.

Serena is still making her case to be on the short list for consideration. If she continues to play and collect slams at this rate for the next couple of years, she'll be part of that conversation.

Sam L
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:21 PM
She needs at least 2 more slams than Graf to compensate for Graf's ridiculous amount of weeks at #1
Stevo, are we going to have the No. 1 as a barometer for greatness when you have players like Jankovic and Safina as No. 1? :confused:

Computer rankings came into being only in 1975. The fact that Graf leads that is really meaningless when players like Court and Wills and Connolly never had that opportunity and when players like Safina and Jankovic have rendered it a joke.

Uranus
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:25 PM
Player of the 2000s => yes
Greatest ever => hell, no.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:25 PM
If Serena wins 6/7 more majors (giving her at least 3 of each...4 of each would be Graf territory), 20+ tour titles (including at least 3 Miami titles and at least 2 YECs), the other 2 mixed doubles majors, spends another year or so ranked #1 and spends 2 more years as the YE #1, I could see her in the discussion.

People consider Roger the Greatest Ever, not just because he won #15, but because his best beats everyone else's best. If Serena can find a comfortable level of domination (or at least staying at or near the top) from now until she retires, I could see her consistently being a part of the G.O.A.T. discussion.

As it stands now, she's far and away the G.O.T.E., but I don't know if she wants to spend the rest of her career chasing records (or pavements :shrug: ). She's going to continue to do what works for her, and if at the end of the day, she accomplishes all of those things, great. If not, she's still the best player Post-Graf....and that's saying a LOT when you consider how many champions have come along:

Davenport
Hingis
The Other Williams Sister
Capriati
Seles
Henin
The Russians/Serbs
Clijsters
Sanchez-Vicario
Peirce
.....

Anabelcroft
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:30 PM
She must increase her records:

Weeks as number 1:

Graf-377
Navratilova-331
Evert-260
.....
Serena-72

Consecutive weeks:
Graf-186
Navratilova-156
Evert-113
....
Serena-57

Open Era Grand Slams:
Graf-22
Navratilova-18
Evert-18
....
Serena-11

Year end number 1 players:
Graf-8 years
Navratilova-7 years
Evert-5 years
....
Serena-1 year

Olympic singles medals:

Graf-gold,silver
Dementieva-gold,silver
Venus-gold
....
Serena-no singles medals

Overall titles won:

Navratilova-167
Evert-154
Graf-107
...
Serena-34

She would also need a calendar Grand Slam is she want's to be considered one of the greats to cut the gap between all those numbers where she is too low to be considered not the best but one of the best in history!

Dave.
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:43 PM
She could break the record of 24 slams and still not be the GOAT, I don't see her getting anywhere near the other significant records (especially titles won). Graf/Evert/Nav/Court all have far superior numbers on their sides. It's not simply a matter of getting the slams.



Going on overall titles, if she could get the Boxed Set that'd help her out.

AndreConrad
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:45 PM
Serena is the greatest ever for her fans and in some ways to everyone. Her flashes of brilliance on the court are beyond anybody and in those moments she brings tennis to a level above anything it was ever before, especially against worthy opponent.

On the other hand, however, Serena is not obsessed with tennis enough so she will never have a long enough stretch of leadership (dominance is not necessary or even possible with today’s competition). If she was able to sustain a couple of years of solid leadership than perhaps she could be considered one of the greatest ever, but then would it be Serena? She will not be forgotten the way she is and that makes her so much more interesting!

Geisha
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:47 PM
honestly, i think one good year could make a big difference. everybody is bringing up these stats, like total weeks and consecutive weeks at number one. if she wins the us open and is able to regain the top ranking during the summer hardcourt season, then the stats start changing dramatically...again. there are many 'ifs', but three more majors by the end of next year equal a total of 14, a whole slew of weeks at number one, another three titles (at least)...you know what i'm saying? i know, it's big dreams/expectations, but...

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:47 PM
If I'm not mistaken, from 1999-2009, there have been 7 (or more) other MULTIPLE slam winners, which (to me) makes Serena's 11 more impressive.

Have there ever been that many M.S.C. in any other era?


And to the poster that talked about Olympic titles, Navratilova, Court, and Evert never won it, and they're considered past of the GOAT conversation. It's just another title. A big one, but no bigger than Miami/I.W. (which Serena has won 7 times). Serena doesn't need an Olympic medal. It's more for national pride than anything else. It's looked at as a Tier II on the calendar.

Geisha
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:48 PM
oh...and for me, i think one more clearly dominant streak of like 8-12 months, would put her in the running.

Geisha
Jul 7th, 2009, 12:49 PM
If I'm not mistaken, from 1999-2009, there have been 7 (or more) other MULTIPLE slam winners, which (to me) makes Serena's 11 more impressive.

Have there ever been that many M.S.C. in any other era?


And to the poster that talked about Olympic titles, Navratilova, Court, and Evert never won it, and they're considered past of the GOAT conversation. It's just another title. A big one, but no bigger than Miami/I.W. (which Serena has won 7 times). Serena doesn't need an Olympic medal. It's more for national pride than anything else. It's looked at as a Tier II on the calendar.

tough.

do multiple slam winners mean strong era full of worthy champions OR an era where one or two champions didn't fill their potential?

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 7th, 2009, 01:03 PM
tough.

do multiple slam winners mean strong era full of worthy champions OR an era where one or two champions didn't fill their potential?

I think it's the first, considering the technology, the new level or athleticism, and power.

Unless you're trying to imply that if Serena was at her 2002/2003/2008/2009 level for most of her career, that Venus, Jennifer, Justine, Svetlana, and Maria (all of the M.S.Cs who won their first major after Serena) wouldn't have won any majors, not to mention all of the 1-slammers.

tennisbear7
Jul 7th, 2009, 01:13 PM
Serena's peak, for me, rivals those of Evert, Navratilova, Seles and Graf.

But her consistency doesn't, and that's where she's losing out to Graf, Nav, Evert, Court, etc.

MaBaker
Jul 7th, 2009, 01:16 PM
lol

Markus
Jul 7th, 2009, 01:37 PM
As tennis fan it is hard to overlook losses against Tian Tian Sun or Craybas at Wimbledon. Serena at her best tells another story though. But hey that's just her. As someone said already she will be remebered as that special person with a strong personality and the ability to play incredible matches with strong results at GS tournaments, but not with the drive to show consistency because of many other interests.

thrust
Jul 7th, 2009, 01:52 PM
Your post is full of contradictions but at least you got it right with your last words. I think that given what we know regarding the current competition, it's unrealistic for Serena to get Court, Graf or even Navratilova like figures. So I'm trying to figure out what is a realistic figure she needs to be considered the Greatest Ever. 11 is not enough. I'm a fan but I'm willing to admit this.

If she wins 16 by the end of her career, I'll say she's the Greatest ever. That's 2 short of Navratilova and Evert who together virtually dominated the tour. Serena's had more rivals at least through Venus and Justine and possibly with Sharapova in the future.

The fact is Slams are not, and should not be, the main criteria in determining a GOAT. Yes Court, Nav, Evert, King, Wills, all won more Slams than Serena but they also won all Slams 3 or more times, held the #1 ranking for 5 or more years, won many more tournaments with many more weeks at #1. All, except Evert were also great doubles players, with many titles in Slams and other tournaments. Perhaps today's game is such that it will be impossible for anyone to achieve the results of the pervious eras. I am inclined to believe that, more and more. I, as a non Serena fan, have to acknowledge that for sheer physical tennis ability Serena is certainly one of the very greatest players of all-time and would have been hightly competitive against any former great champion. The same is true of Venus and Justine.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:00 PM
As tennis fan it is hard to overlook losses against Tian Tian Sun or Craybas at Wimbledon. Serena at her best tells another story though. But hey that's just her. As someone said already she will be remebered as that special person with a strong personality and the ability to play incredible matches with strong results at GS tournaments, but not with the drive to show consistency because of many other interests.

Oh please. All of the top players have has :eek::unsure::tape: losses in their careers. 2005 (post Amelia Island) - 2006 (pre-Cincinnatti) was a particularly low lull for her. And even in her lowest point, she only suffered losses to: Farina Elia (retirement), Schiavone, Craybas, Venus, Sun, and Hantuchova.

And another thing that sticks out as a HUGE positive in Serena's favor is the fact that she doesn't have a H2H deficit greater than -1 with ANY player (active or retired). I don't know what the stats are for the retired players, but her W/L record against Top 10s and the fact that she had the fastest rise from Outside the Top 500 to Inside the Top 5, stick out heavily in her favor.

Ballbasher
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:05 PM
I think it's the first, considering the technology, the new level or athleticism, and power.

Unless you're trying to imply that if Serena was at her 2002/2003/2008/2009 level for most of her career, that Venus, Jennifer, Justine, Svetlana, and Maria (all of the M.S.Cs who won their first major after Serena) wouldn't have won any majors, not to mention all of the 1-slammers.
What is more striking in my eyes is that, all of these players had to beat Serena at least in ONE of their slams in the later stages, where she rarely loses to someone. There is noone who indicated more greatness than her in the 2000s.

Anabelcroft
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:06 PM
Don't know about her h2h stats,but if her numbers are great she is there with Steffi Graf who doesn't have any negative h2h record against any player who was number 1 in the world...

thrust
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:07 PM
If I'm not mistaken, from 1999-2009, there have been 7 (or more) other MULTIPLE slam winners, which (to me) makes Serena's 11 more impressive.

Have there ever been that many M.S.C. in any other era?


And to the poster that talked about Olympic titles, Navratilova, Court, and Evert never won it, and they're considered past of the GOAT conversation. It's just another title. A big one, but no bigger than Miami/I.W. (which Serena has won 7 times). Serena doesn't need an Olympic medal. It's more for national pride than anything else. It's looked at as a Tier II on the calendar.

Not that it makes that much difference but, the fact is, that after 1924 there was NO tennis competition at the Olympics till 1988. That, of course, would make it impossible for Court, King, Nav, and other greats to win an Olympic Gold.

kiwifan
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:13 PM
about 8-12 more Slams.

Fewer if she can add a few more Frenchies to the collection.

thrust
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:18 PM
Don't know about her h2h stats,but if her numbers are great she is there with Steffi Graf who doesn't have any negative h2h record against any player who was number 1 in the world...

Neither did Court, in a much more competitive era.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:21 PM
Not that it makes that much difference but, the fact is, that after 1924 there was NO tennis competition at the Olympics till 1988. That, of course, would make it impossible for Court, King, Nav, and other greats to win an Olympic Gold.

Well there you go. :shrug: lol

Rollo
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:33 PM
She could win THE Grand Slam.

While that's a huge task, she has the tools to do it. Clearly Paris is the biggest hurdle, but had it not been for Kuzzy at the French the title of this thread could be "Will Serena be the Greatest ever if she wins the Grand Slam?

BlameSerena
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:37 PM
Funny, they were talking about this on sports radio this morning, and they never talk about tennis. I was pleasantly surprised with all of the responses from callers and even from the show hosts. The consensus was that she could be the greatest w/o having 22 slams...but still needs a few more, which would be perfect in the form of THE grand slam.

Olórin
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:39 PM
The fact is Slams are not, and should not be, the main criteria in determining a GOAT. Yes Court, Nav, Evert, King, Wills, all won more Slams than Serena but they also won all Slams 3 or more times, held the #1 ranking for 5 or more years, won many more tournaments with many more weeks at #1. All, except Evert were also great doubles players, with many titles in Slams and other tournaments. Perhaps today's game is such that it will be impossible for anyone to achieve the results of the pervious eras. I am inclined to believe that, more and more. I, as a non Serena fan, have to acknowledge that for sheer physical tennis ability Serena is certainly one of the very greatest players of all-time and would have been hightly competitive against any former great champion. The same is true of Venus and Justine.

Who is to say that slams shoul not be the main criteria in determining GOAT? Currently,frankly, they are the main criteria. You have to be a fool not to see it. Just look at the fuss that was made over Federer's record breaking win. The issue is with them being the only criteria, and whether the exact numbers matter so much as the rought ball park of slams won.

There is some more erroneous information in your post. You list Nav, Evert, Wills etc. as winning all the slams three times or more when they didn't. Wills never even went to Australia, Evert won two AO's, Nav won two FO's. The number one ranking has only existed since 1975 so I'm not quite sure how Court or Connolly managed to hold it for 5 or more years. You also make up information saying that all except Evert were great doubles players, was Graf a great doubles player? No. How many doubles slams did Connolly win?

Olórin
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:41 PM
Funny, they were talking about this on sports radio this morning, and they never talk about tennis. I was pleasantly surprised with all of the responses from callers and even from the show hosts. The consensus was that she could be the greatest w/o having 22 slams...but still needs a few more, which would be perfect in the form of THE grand slam.

John McEnroe said pretty much the same thing after Australia.
Billie Jean King was talking about Serena as possibly being the greatest of all time after the final on the BBC. Although I guess she is a bit sensationalist in terms of promulgating the 'magnificence' of women's tennis.

matty
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:42 PM
She is definitely ONE of the greatest ever--it's hard to say who THE greatest of all time is--Graff is one of the greatest ever for sure, but she would have had a few less slam titles if Seles hadn't left for awhile. I would even say Henin is ONE of the greatest ever.

BlameSerena
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:47 PM
John McEnroe said pretty much the same thing after Australia.
Billie Jean King was talking about Serena as possibly being the greatest of all time after the final on the BBC. Although I guess she is a bit sensationalist in terms of promulgating the 'magnificence' of women's tennis.

Sometimes BJK is that way :lol::lol:.

I just know that as much as I would love Rena to win 20+ slams, I am at least tempered by the fact that she's in the conversation in a major way about GOAT...(if she wins 3-4 more, which I think is highly possible).

Grafiati
Jul 7th, 2009, 02:54 PM
I won't get into a detailed response but rather give one obvious example of what "it would take" for Serena to be up there: clay court success (specifically at Roland Garros).

Rollo
Jul 7th, 2009, 03:15 PM
I won't get into a detailed response but rather give one obvious example of what "it would take" for Serena to be up there: clay court success (specifically at Roland Garros).


Yep.That's one gap in her resume. If she ends up with say, 17 slams it would be good for Serena if she bags at least one more French.

thrust
Jul 7th, 2009, 03:35 PM
Who is to say that slams shoul not be the main criteria in determining GOAT? Currently,frankly, they are the main criteria. You have to be a fool not to see it. Just look at the fuss that was made over Federer's record breaking win. The issue is with them being the only criteria, and whether the exact numbers matter so much as the rought ball park of slams won.

There is some more erroneous information in your post. You list Nav, Evert, Wills etc. as winning all the slams three times or more when they didn't. Wills never even went to Australia, Evert won two AO's, Nav won two FO's. The number one ranking has only existed since 1975 so I'm not quite sure how Court or Connolly managed to hold it for 5 or more years. You also make up information saying that all except Evert were great doubles players, was Graf a great doubles player? No. How many doubles slams did Connolly win?
I guess it was too early in the morning for me, which accounts for a few minor mistakes-LOL!! Until about 15 or 20 years ago Slams were not taken as seriously as they are today. The main point I was trying to make was that Serena IS one of the all time great players and that, in today's game, it will be nearly impossible to achieve the results of Court, Graf, Moody and Evert. The only reason Moody never won in Australia, is because she never played there. That was a very long trip at that time.
There was always some sort of ranking system before 1975. I was based on relults from Jan-Dec of the same year, which is a more accurate way of determining who was the top player of THAT year. Today's ranking system is a joke!

Helen Lawson
Jul 7th, 2009, 03:52 PM
I think 15 -16 slams and another French, she's in the conversation. But her consistency has never been at the Graf, Evert, Navratilova level so she will never have the weeks at no. 1 or the non-slam singles titles count that it would take to overcome these women in the debate.

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:05 PM
Problem is she's so far behind Graf/Navratilova/Evert in so many categories. Slams are not the only thing that matter in tennis.

The reason Federer is considered by many to be GOAT is because of his absolute COMPLETE domination of tennis. He has done more than win 15 slams.. he has a few YEC's, a shitload of Masters Series titles, a very high winning %, and an insane amount of consecutive weeks at #1.

If she can gain ground in this area and then win 15-17 more slams, then I can see her as greatest of the Open Era.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:27 PM
There are only two ways of deciding who is the best ever:

1. Objectively with statistics.

2. Subjectively having watched all of the above play against their peers.

I tend to favour the second option myself.

So do I.

Statistics are misleading when you compare different generations of professional sport. There is no way Phelps is the greatest Olympian ever. By the same token, there's no way Graf is the GOAT because she has the most Open Era slams.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:29 PM
She could break the record of 24 slams and still not be the GOAT, I don't see her getting anywhere near the other significant records (especially titles won). Graf/Evert/Nav/Court all have far superior numbers on their sides. It's not simply a matter of getting the slams.



Going on overall titles, if she could get the Boxed Set that'd help her out.

No one cares about number of titles won. Could you lsit the total number of titles Laver won off the top of your head? Fed's total titles? Martina's total title count? Graf's?

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:36 PM
No one cares about number of titles won. Could you lsit the total number of titles Laver won off the top of your head? Fed's total titles? Martina's total title count? Graf's?

Graf won 107 titles. Navratilova is in the 160s or 170s. These numbers do matter greatly. They are a way of showing how dominant a player was along with weeks and years at #1

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Graf won 107 titles. Navratilova is in the 160s or 170s. These numbers do matter greatly. They are a way of showing how dominant a player was along with weeks and years at #1

How dominant they were amongst their contemporaries, yes. The thing is, I don't think that's the best measure of greatness.

Federer, just to use one example, is imo one of the greatest clay court players of all time. Yet he was never the BEST clay courter during his career (at least not yet). Was the fact that he played against the clay court GOAT an indictment of his skill? I'd argue no.

To put it even simpler: Almost everyone disqualifies pre Open Era players/results from GOAT discussion, because of issues around lack of competition. Why can't we do the same, or at least qualify, certain Open Era players?

Dave.
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:43 PM
No one cares about number of titles won. Could you lsit the total number of titles Laver won off the top of your head? Fed's total titles? Martina's total title count? Graf's?

That's beside the point. You shouldn't be able to just list these things off the top of your head and come up with an answer in 2 seconds. We're talking about who is the highest achieving player of all time, that's over a hundred years worth of tennis. I'd like to think it takes a bit more time and research, not just arranging players in order of slams won which some people think (wrongly) is the case.

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:47 PM
How dominant they were amongst their contemporaries, yes. The thing is, I don't think that's the best measure of greatness.

Federer, just to use one example, is imo one of the greatest clay court players of all time. Yet he was never the BEST clay courter during his career (at least not yet). Was the fact that he played against the clay court GOAT an indictment of his skill? I'd argue no.

To put it even simpler: Almost everyone disqualifies pre Open Era players/results from GOAT discussion, because of issues around lack of competition. Why can't we do the same, or at least qualify, certain Open Era players?

I don't agree. Almost everyone disqualifies pre-Open era players? Most of the time this conversation comes up Court, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden and others are mentioned until the distinction is made that the discussion is Open Era only. I think that's why there is so much contention around Fed's GOAT status because it's almost impossible to compare pre-Open era and Open era players. Thus, you have to draw some kind of line.

And I don't understand what point you are trying to make with your Federer example. The only way to measure greatness is how someone performed against their contemporaries. You can't really take Federer and throw him into some kind of imaginary scenario in another era. The only objective criteria we have are statistics. Without these titles, weeks at #1, slam records, etc. it's all just subjective speculation.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:54 PM
I don't agree. Almost everyone disqualifies pre-Open era players? Most of the time this conversation comes up Court, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden and others are mentioned until the distinction is made that the discussion is Open Era only. I think that's why there is so much contention around Fed's GOAT status because it's almost impossible to compare pre-Open era and Open era players. Thus, you have to draw some kind of line.

And I don't understand what point you are trying to make with your Federer example. The only way to measure greatness is how someone performed against their contemporaries. You can't really take Federer and throw him into some kind of imaginary scenario in another era. The only objective criteria we have are statistics. Without these titles, weeks at #1, slam records, etc. it's all just subjective speculation.

Exactly: "Open Era Only". Why is this distinction made at all? The implication is that The Open era is inherently different from the period before it. I could make the same arguments about different periods in Open Era tennis.

And Laver and Court both played in the Open Era. I was referring to people who's entire career was enclosed in the pre Open Era.

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2009, 04:59 PM
Exactly: "Open Era Only". Why is this distinction made at all? The implication is that The Open era is inherently different from the period before it. I could make the same arguments about different periods in Open Era tennis.

And Laver and Court both played in the Open Era. I was referring to people who's entire career was enclosed in the pre Open Era.

Do you know why the distinction is made? It's not some arbitrary line. There is a very important difference that does not exist in periods after the change.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:01 PM
Do you know why the distinction is made? It's not some arbitrary line. There is a very important difference that does not exist in periods after the change.

Of course it's not some arbitrary line. I'm just saying that not every single period in Open Era tennis is the same. The competition has steadily improved, just as it did when pros were allowed to play.

LDVTennis
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Too late!

These threads pop up every time Serena wins a major. :yawn:

Ciarán
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:06 PM
Another 11 slams :bigwave:

Calypso
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:11 PM
1. Win at least 2 slams on ALL surfaces

2. Win at least 2 slams FIVE times or more (the absolute legends seem to have achieved this, Evert with her 7 RGs and Martina her 9 Wimbys, (and Venus with her 5 at Wimby ;) j/k). It seems to be a prerequisite of GOATness to show a supreme degree of dominance at at least one slam.

3. Beat Graf's 22 slams (harsh, I know), or at LEAST equal the record of 18 won by Evertilova. People will say "Its not possible in today's game," but just look at what Roger has done, smashing all sorts of '"impossible" records in MEN'S tennis, with all its depth and best-of-5 gruelling GS matches. Court's 24 GS seem to be downplayed because of the 11 A.O's she won in a supposedly weakened field (in some years).

4. Achieve a whole lot more weeks at No.1.

But Serena has done really well for herself, and already said she does not obsess with records. She's the best of her generation, and that's excellent in itself!

MistyGrey
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:11 PM
Well Serena is up there with the best, but she has a long way to go before she can be considered for the title of GOAT. Others have already mentioned her lack of consistance, weeks at number 1, total tournaments etc, where Graf,Navratilova,Court,Evert etc excel.. However, for me the main aspect in the GOAT discussion is the ability to dominate on all four surfaces.. and Serena has a very Myskina/Majoli-ish record on clay! She hasnt been to the semis of a red clay even since 2003! that is huge! She has got to the semis of RG only twice in her career and has only 3 top ten wins there. Her numbers on carpet arent great either, but there arent a lot of events on carpet these days. While her Claycourt resume is pretty good, by GOAT standards its pretty below average. She will have to really improve her numbers on clay, among other things, to get up there with the Grafs and the Navratilvoas.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:12 PM
The reason Federer is considered by many to be GOAT is because of his absolute COMPLETE domination of tennis. He has done more than win 15 slams.. he has a few YEC's, a shitload of Masters Series titles, a very high winning %, and an insane amount of consecutive weeks at #1.
Serena has a shitload of Masters Titles too. 10 I think. And she's not done. How many masters shields does Fed have? 10/12?

Plus, I think one thing that's HUGELY overlooked in all of this GOAT talk is that her SISTER is a 7-time major champion who had to beat Serena en route to 3 of her titles, and Serena had to beat Venus en route to 7 of hers.

None of the majors champions in this GOAT discussion had a slam winning sibling on their tour. Yeah Evert had Navratilova and Sampras had Agassi, but no one can really understand what the benefits and challenges of having a sibling try their hardest to dimish your own legacy instead of cheering for you.

And that's not to say that Serena would have won 14 if not for Venus or that Venus would have won 10 if not for Serena...but it makes you think....(or me at least)

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:16 PM
15 masters fed has

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:24 PM
imo she doesn't need to be considered GOAT :shrug: she has a GOAT game but injuries and other personal tragedies stopped what everyone thought would be years of just racking up titles...she had the ability to dominate the way fed did....and at this point in her career serena said she's just playing to rack up majors for her own personal satisfaction and not to chase history :shrug:

serena explained what went wrong with her knee and how she couldn't even bend it at some points through rehab, and then she didn't take the proper time to rehab...she admitted that mentally that took a toll cause she went from winning almost everything to not knowing if she was going to play again...(admitted last night on letterman)

at this point in her career serena seems to be fine winning majors, playing here and there for match play to be ready for the big stage....i don't expect her to rack up a whole lot of titles outside of slams or play enough to be #1 so i'm not bothered that she won't reach Graf territory but she doesn't seem to mind either :shrug:

LDVTennis
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Of course it's not some arbitrary line. I'm just saying that not every single period in Open Era tennis is the same. The competition has steadily improved, just as it did when pros were allowed to play.

Here's the problem with your theory.

If this were true, you wouldn't be the only one saying that. There would be a general consensus about it. In which case, I could visit any tennis board on this planet and read the same thing. It wouldn't just be the tennis fans here who thought that way, but the tennis fans at the tenniswarehouse.net boards.

So, let's see what they think? Go to link --- http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=254672.

For the sake of argument, let's say the fans at tenniswarehouse are wrong about this? For the record, I don' think they are. But, let's say they are. Then, it's your case against their case. Here things get complicated and contested. If no one can agree that the competition has improved, the default position is that all competition is equal. In that scenario, the argument that Serena is greater would have to be premised on something else.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:30 PM
Here's the problem with your theory.

If this were true, you wouldn't be the only one saying that. There would be a general consensus about it. In which case, I could visit any tennis board on this planet and read the same thing. It wouldn't just be the tennis fans here who thought that way, but the tennis fans at the tenniswarehouse.net boards.

So, let's see what they think? Go to link --- http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=254672.

For the sake of argument, let's say the fans at tenniswarehouse are wrong about this? For the record, I don' think they are. But, let's say they are. Then, it's your case against their case. Here things get complicated and contested. If no one can agree that the competition has improved, the default position is that all competition is equal. In that scenario, the argument that Serena is greater would have to be premised on something else.

You are basing your whole argument on the basis of 47 votes of random people and multiple accounts ? :lol:

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Here's the problem with your theory.

If this were true, you wouldn't be the only one saying that. There would be a general consensus about it. In which case, I could visit any tennis board on this planet and read the same thing. It wouldn't just be the tennis fans here who thought that way, but the tennis fans at the tenniswarehouse.net boards.

So, let's see what they think? Go to link --- http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=254672.

For the sake of argument, let's say the fans at tenniswarehouse are wrong about this? For the record, I don' think they are. But, let's say they are. Then, it's your case against their case. Here things get complicated and contested. If no one can agree that the competition has improved, the default position is that all competition is equal. In that scenario, the argument that Serena is greater would have to be premised on something else.

Henin got more votes than Serena on that poll, despite Henin's career being entirely encompassed within that of Serena's. That should tell you about the mentality of those on that board regarding Serena.

Kampi
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:42 PM
again and again for her fans she is GOAT now. She won't be greatest ever. She will behind Graf, Court or Navratilova in many stats

Totally agree, because everyone who thinks she would be the greatest ever should take a look at the stats. She is not even close to what Graf, Court and Navratilova achieved. But I consider her as one of the best, even when I dislike her attitude at times. If she would be more humbled I could even like her a little bit more..amd to make it clear, I already like her in a way. She also has my full respect as a true champ. Unfortunately we cannot say that we have a lot of them around currently, which is a bloody shame.:o But Serena is not to blame for this of course. She is already one of the older players, coming from the last glimpses of Steffis awesome generation of true giants....and indeed she seems one of the last giants at this stage.

sammy01
Jul 7th, 2009, 05:48 PM
Serena has a shitload of Masters Titles too. 10 I think. And she's not done. How many masters shields does Fed have? 10/12?

Plus, I think one thing that's HUGELY overlooked in all of this GOAT talk is that her SISTER is a 7-time major champion who had to beat Serena en route to 3 of her titles, and Serena had to beat Venus en route to 7 of hers.

None of the majors champions in this GOAT discussion had a slam winning sibling on their tour. Yeah Evert had Navratilova and Sampras had Agassi, but no one can really understand what the benefits and challenges of having a sibling try their hardest to dimish your own legacy instead of cheering for you.

And that's not to say that Serena would have won 14 if not for Venus or that Venus would have won 10 if not for Serena...but it makes you think....(or me at least)

this is prbably hands down the worst arguement for serena being the GOAT. both venus and serena actively try not to play the same tournaments to avoid playing each other, nav and evert, graf and seles ect didn't back out of tournaments because of the other, they faced their main competition all the time.

it would be much harder to beat a rival that would kill to destroy you in a match, than one who knows losing to their sister will result in the sister still winning a slam.

if nav could beat evert 6-0, 6-0 in a slam final she would, theres no way a williams sister would ever lay a beatdown on the other like that.

IMO it takes away from serena slightly that her biggest competition was her sister, as anyone whos seen their slam finals knows they don't go for the jugular against each other like they do against others.

CloudAtlas
Jul 7th, 2009, 06:59 PM
I can see there's been a lot of discussion over the statistics , but Grand Slams are just a part of the equation. People can object all they like but weeks spent at #1 , number of overall titles and matches won also matter, areas in which Serena is severely lacking, I'd say Serena needs at least 18 Slams to be even seriously considered to be muttered in the same breath as Navratilova and Graf and definetely a lot more titles and weeks spent at #1. And Serena doesn't have a big rivalry with any players in this Slam winning period so that counts against her too. However one must also have the aura of someone who is the absolute pinnacle of women's tennis, which at the moment Serena doesn't have. Had Serena won continously against the decent opponets at the levels she faced them at between 2002-2005 she would've been up there but right now she's winning against joke #1's Safina , Jankovic and then her own sister. It's not her fault that the current women are so weak but oh well.

Sorry to have to say it but in the grand scheme of things , who you win a GS against also matters.

Matt01
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Another 11 slams :bigwave:

:lol:

2Black
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:20 PM
As an athlete, you just want to be IN THE DISCUSSION of greatest player ever. All of it is hypothetical anyway so being in the discussion is all that really matters.

For Serena to be in the discussion, she simply needs to get to 17 slams ... forget weeks at #1 & all the smaller tournaments. Most talking heads don't know those numbers. But what they will remember is that Serena Williams won 17 without even putting as much effort into her tennis career as Navratilova or Graf. Many will say that alone speaks volumes!!!

Even now, many still consider her overweight, yet she holds 3 of the slams. The girl is definitely headed towards THE DISCUSSION!!!

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:21 PM
I will say this.. Serena's best is possibly THE BEST EVER. At her peak, her play rivaled anything I've ever seen from any female tennis player. She had and will always have the aura of a champion and a will and fighting spirit that very few have ever had.. male or female.

homogenius
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:21 PM
In terms of stats she has no chance to reach the numbers of past players like Court, Graf, Evert or Navratilova (but probably no one could...).
Sure she played in a more professionnal/competitive era than the other four so it's not entirely her "fault" but she has also a part of responsability : she has been too inconsistent throughout her career and has some holes in her resume (results on clay, troubles to keep the n°1 spot for a long time etc...).

That being said, game wise she's one the greatest, and she's one of the two best fighter to ever play the game.

darrinbaker00
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Here's the problem with your theory.

If this were true, you wouldn't be the only one saying that. There would be a general consensus about it. In which case, I could visit any tennis board on this planet and read the same thing. It wouldn't just be the tennis fans here who thought that way, but the tennis fans at the tenniswarehouse.net boards.

So, let's see what they think? Go to link --- http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=254672.

For the sake of argument, let's say the fans at tenniswarehouse are wrong about this? For the record, I don' think they are. But, let's say they are. Then, it's your case against their case. Here things get complicated and contested. If no one can agree that the competition has improved, the default position is that all competition is equal. In that scenario, the argument that Serena is greater would have to be premised on something else.
The fans on the Tennis Warehouse boards are the final authority of all things tennis? I did not know that. Thank you so much for enlightening me. :bowdown:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:34 PM
She needs 100 singles titles at least

900 WTA Level matches won at least

85% of winning percentage

2Black
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:39 PM
I kinda think that even if Serena ONLY gets to 15, she'll be in the discussion for soooooo many reasons

moby
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:40 PM
She trails Graf and Evertilova in almost all statistical categories. Assume for a moment that we discount statistics. At her best, Serena could take out all of these players at their best, but unfortunately a tennis career is not judged simply by the magnitude by your best, but also by how long you can stay at your best, and how good you are at winning when not at your best. Serena has succeeded admirably in the latter. The former? Not so much.

What made Graf and Evertilova so special was that week in week out, year after year, they'd be there in the final stages of the tournament ready to challenge for the trophy, whether this tournament be a GS or a much maligned MM tournament.

Then there's the obvious point of her weak claycourt resume. She's won what - 2 red clay tournaments in here entire career?

Marty-Dom
Jul 7th, 2009, 07:49 PM
The train to Goatville has left the station without Serena back in 2004.
But, she still had her seat on the plane to Mt. New Apex also known as the little town for athletes that's built at the highest elevation of all towns. No other female tennis player has resided in Mt. New Apex since Serena bought her house there. It's not as prestigious as a property in Goatville, but the view from the top can't be beat.

To be continued
Jul 7th, 2009, 08:02 PM
That’s very simple. When she’s amassed as many GSST as Steffi, gave us a bell…

AlwaysGraf
Jul 7th, 2009, 08:46 PM
This thread is unbelievably stupid and seriously makes me wtf do you people think
Serena Williams is not and will never be considered the greatest of all time. Get real people. How many of you are die hard serena fans!!!!!!!!! Honestly.............

Anabelcroft
Jul 7th, 2009, 08:53 PM
Well,true but they want to know what she has to do to be just considered among the best of all time,not just her generation...

To be continued
Jul 7th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Well,true but they want to know what she has to do to be just considered among the best of all time,not just her generation...

She has to eat 4 shredded wheat....

BlameSerena
Jul 7th, 2009, 08:55 PM
This thread is unbelievably stupid and seriously makes me wtf do you people think
Serena Williams is not and will never be considered the greatest of all time. Get real people. How many of you are die hard serena fans!!!!!!!!! Honestly.............

She's in the conversation, not just according to this die hard fan. Wonder who you're a fan of...hmmmm

Obviously she has some work to do to get there, but what exactly would it take in your opinion? That was the question.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 08:56 PM
That’s very simple. When she’s amassed as many GSST as Steffi, gave us a bell…

It's harder to win 22 slams now. Silly expectation to set for someone.

Noctis
Jul 7th, 2009, 09:01 PM
When all the Haters Dies
maybe someone should kidnap them all and drop them the bombshell

bandabou
Jul 7th, 2009, 09:03 PM
way too early man. Let's wait and see how this works out.

To be continued
Jul 7th, 2009, 09:05 PM
It's harder to win 22 slams now. Silly expectation to set for someone.

It is? Why's that....

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 7th, 2009, 09:07 PM
With all the injuries she had in 2005 -2006, I would have never thought that one day she would win 11 GS titles :awww:

Keep on performing well Serena :kiss:



i agree. during that time it was frustrating and sad being a fan. she has accomplished so much since then.

with that said, the current slam record holders didn't have as near as much competition as the ladies do now. i don't care what the fuck you say, it's absolutely true. if serena can win one more french open and end her career with 17 slams, she would be the greatest player of all time (ladies) in my opinion. she really needs that extra french which would put her at 12, and if she can win 5 more with the depth of the women's contenders today, there wouldn't be much to argue. ESPECIALLY if you consider a heap of these was after her age of 25.

To be continued
Jul 7th, 2009, 09:10 PM
When all the Haters Dies
maybe someone should kidnap them all and drop them the bombshell

Why would anyone want to kidnap dead people?:lol:

OsloErik
Jul 7th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Personally, I think she has to answer the question about her clay court performance before she gets into the GOAT discussion, at least in the singles GOAT discussion that is.

Every player whom I'd throw out as a GOAT contender (Evert, Graf, Navratilova, and Court) have multiple slams on all three surfaces. The players who have a surface with noticeably fewer slam titles (Evert on grass, Navratilova on clay, Court on hardcourt) have something evident that patches that deficiency.

Court barely played on hard courts during her career; I'm not sure she ever contested a slam played off of grass or clay.
Navratilova may have only two slams on clay compared with 9 on grass and roughly 7 on hard courts (again, I lose track of the years Australia and US switched), but she has an additional four finals. Clearly it's her weakest surface, but she was still one of the three or four best players when she stepped onto clay courts during her career.
Evert LOOKS like she'd have grass as her weakest surface, but she actually won 5 slams on grass (three Wimbledons and both her Aussie titles) compared with 'just' 3 slams on hard courts. Clearly, she's partially stuck by the fact hard courts weren't in use until the mid 80s, but she also managed to be the 2nd best player on grass and hard courts for her entire career. Navratilova was just better enough to keep her back.

Serena's career numbers on clay are pretty sad when compared to the other candidates career numbers on their respective worst surfaces. At the French Open, she's been past the quarterfinals twice, has only one appearance past the semifinals (when she won the title), and hasn't managed to do much else on the surface beyond Paris. There's a glaring hole in her singles resume in the way there isn't for any other of the top picks. If she corrects that in the next three or four seasons, she's in the discussion, easy. But until then, it's just too much of a stretch to call her the GOAT if she's not even a top 5 player on given a surface during her career.

Matt01
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:22 PM
Funny. All day long on this board, people are complaining about the poor state of the WTA, and now when it comes to Serena's accomplishments, it is suddenly sooo hard to win the big titles :yawn:

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:30 PM
Funny. All day long on this board, people are complaining about the poor state of the WTA, and now when it comes to Serena's accomplishments, it is suddenly sooo hard to win the big titles :yawn:

It's still much harder than it was 20 years ago. I don't know how anyone could deny this :shrug:

sammy01
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:33 PM
It's still much harder than it was 20 years ago. I don't know how anyone could deny this :shrug:

early rounds yes, but later rounds no. 20 years ago you had nav, evert and graf all making slam finals, you had to beat them to win slams. safina just rolls over and gives her opponent the win.

darrinbaker00
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:45 PM
i agree. during that time it was frustrating and sad being a fan. she has accomplished so much since then.

with that said, the current slam record holders didn't have as near as much competition as the ladies do now. i don't care what the fuck you say, it's absolutely true. if serena can win one more french open and end her career with 17 slams, she would be the greatest player of all time (ladies) in my opinion. she really needs that extra french which would put her at 12, and if she can win 5 more with the depth of the women's contenders today, there wouldn't be much to argue. ESPECIALLY if you consider a heap of these was after her age of 25.
I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with the part I bolded. For instance, Evert and Navratilova not only had each other to deal with, but they also had Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Rosie Casals, Francoise Durr, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade, Tracy Austin, Pam Shriver, Hana Mandlikova, Gabriela Sabatini, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles, and those are just the Hall-of-Famers. Venus and Serena's contemporaries just don't have the same pedigrees, at least not yet.

To be continued
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:49 PM
It's still much harder than it was 20 years ago. I don't know how anyone could deny this :shrug:

You don't know anything abou tennis, what Anna K fan does?

spencercarlos
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:56 PM
There are only two ways of deciding who is the best ever:

1. Objectively with statistics.

2. Subjectively having watched all of the above play against their peers.

I tend to favour the second option myself.
Option #2 is not a measureable stat, it will only be subjetive, there is no way you can define a GOAT based on just watching them play. Some will say the biggest hitter is the best, some will say the net rusher is the best, some will say the strategic is the best and so on.

CR3WLFC
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:00 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZMDC2KajabM/SGB6tcIqKlI/AAAAAAAAApo/N17nkI2H6gk/s320/serenacatsuit.jpg

Play in this again :worship:
She will be mine Greatest ever.

spencercarlos
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:00 PM
It's still much harder than it was 20 years ago. I don't know how anyone could deny this :shrug:
So womens tennis is harder today and mens tennis is not?.

I think right now and since Henin retired womens tennis level overall has decreased, and its easy to see why Serena despite not being playing her best at times, she keeps winning slam after slam. Just imagine what 2002 Serena would do with today´s field IMO.

Rollo
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:07 PM
You know, there's another lady who won a heap of slams & got to a whole lot of slam semifinals as well - YET most people don't believe she's in the discussion of GOAT. That would be Chris Evert (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=384492&page=7#). That is because alot of this is judged on what the eye sees - Not just records or statistics.

That is why I say, if Serena gets to 17, she will join the discussion easily. Being #1 for forever won't matter. Winning a bunch of smaller tournaments won't matter. Because people will remember what they saw on video tape - determination, fight, will-power, athleticism, speed, serve, from the grave comebacks, etc

Actually if consistency is the measure of a GOAT Evert wins it hands down:)

But what you really appear to be saying here is Evert should be discounted because she appears slow on video? That's not a fair comparison unless Serena/Sharapova etc actually grew up in Evert's era AND hit the hell out of the ball to overpower her. We know how Evert adapted to changes-she grew stronger, hit the ball harder, and had no problems beating up on young punks well into her mid-30s.

The eye can be deceiving

As for the other qualities you mentioned

determination--Evert had it spades.
fight--ditto. She didn't yell like Serena or fist pump ala Martina, but when
Miss Chris narrowed her eyes-watch out!

athleticism--No Evert's strong suit. She was more athletic than people give
her credit for though. More of an athlete than Seles for example.

speed--Evert was fast.

from the grave comebacks--Evert was famous for them too. She first shot to fame saving 6 match points in her first US Open.

None of this is slagging on Serena.

Eah player must be judged on his or her era. Evert bridged the two eras that saw the biggest changes in tennis history by winning slams with both wood AND metal.

darrinbaker00
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:20 PM
Actually if consistency is the measure of a GOAT Evert wins it hands down:)

But what you really appear to be saying here is Evert should be discounted because she appears slow on video? That's not a fair comparison unless Serena/Sharapova etc actually grew up in Evert's era AND hit the hell out of the ball to overpower her. We know how Evert adapted to changes-she grew stronger, hit the ball harder, and had no problems beating up on young punks well into her mid-30s.

The eye can be deceiving

As for the other qualities you mentioned

determination--Evert had it spades.
fight--ditto. She didn't yell like Serena or fist pump ala Martina, but when
Miss Chris narrowed her eyes-watch out!

athleticism--No Evert's strong suit. She was more athletic than people give
her credit for though. More of an athlete than Seles for example.

speed--Evert was fast.

from the grave comebacks--Evert was famous for them too. She first shot to fame saving 6 match points in her first US Open.

None of this is slagging on Serena.

Eah player must be judged on his or her era. Evert bridged the two eras that saw the biggest changes in tennis history by winning slams with both wood AND metal.
Career .900 winning percentage. One hundred fifty-seven wins (and 76 runners-up) out of 303 tournaments played. THIRTEEN consecutive years with at least one major singles title. That's not consistent; that's insane.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:39 PM
So womens tennis is harder today and mens tennis is not?.

I think right now and since Henin retired womens tennis level overall has decreased, and its easy to see why Serena despite not being playing her best at times, she keeps winning slam after slam. Just imagine what 2002 Serena would do with today´s field IMO.

Men's tennis is harder as well.

The idea that athletes get better with time is acknowledged in every single sport EXCEPT tennis. It's insane.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:39 PM
It's still much harder than it was 20 years ago. I don't know how anyone could deny this :shrug:

This.

BlameSerena
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:41 PM
Career .900 winning percentage. One hundred fifty-seven wins (and 76 runners-up) out of 303 tournaments played. THIRTEEN consecutive years with at least one major singles title. That's not consistent; that's insane.

:bowdown::bowdown:

PhoenixStorm
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:25 AM
Well, it certainly isn't the number of slams otherwise Court would be considered the greatest player ever. She isn't. Steffi has less slams yet she is considered greater than court. Sampras has less slams than Steffi and yet he is considered greater than her.

So it stands that a case can be made for Serena.

Joana
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Another 10+ Slams, in singles.

Next.

Joana
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:48 AM
Well, it certainly isn't the number of slams otherwise Court would be considered the greatest player ever. She isn't. Steffi has less slams yet she is considered greater than court. Sampras has less slams than Steffi and yet he is considered greater than her.

So it stands that a case can be made for Serena.

Do we really need to discuss why Sampras, a male athlete, is considered greater than Graf, a female athlete? :confused:

As for Graf/Court comparison, Steffi won all her titles in the open era.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:52 AM
didn't court also play in the days of challenge round?? or did that end before her

thrust
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:05 AM
Exactly: "Open Era Only". Why is this distinction made at all? The implication is that The Open era is inherently different from the period before it. I could make the same arguments about different periods in Open Era tennis.

And Laver and Court both played in the Open Era. I was referring to people who's entire career was enclosed in the pre Open Era.

The open era begain in 1968 for MEN'S tennis. They had a pro tour in which most of the top players competed. When Laver joined the pro tour in 63, he was creamed by Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez. THERE WAS NO WOMEN'S PRO TOUR, THEREFORE, ALL THE TOP PLAYERS COMPETED AGAINST EACH OTHER BEFORE AND AFTER 1968. For that reason, it is unfair for the WTA to discount non slam tournaments before 1968. If the did, Court would have 190 tournament wins, BJK 104, Richey 68.

AnomyBC
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:06 AM
Most likely for Serena or any other female player to be considered the greatest of all time they would have to win at least 23 slams, with 25 being the ideal. It would also be helpful if she won a calender year slam, won the French Open a few more times or won an Olympic gold medal in singles.

Realistically, I think the best she's going to be able to do is #6 of all time, after Court, Graf, Wills Moody, Navratilova and Evert. In order to achieve that she would need to win 13 slams, which is only 2 more than what she currently has, so it shouldn't be that difficult.

Donny
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:10 AM
You took my post out of context. No where in my post did I make a comparison of Serena to Evert on those qualities. What I was saying was at the moment, most people see either Navratilova or Graf as the GOAT & not Evert. It can't be based simply on stats because Evert has alot of stats in her favor. My point with bringing up Chris was that, in determining GOAT, people look beyond stats.

Here is another example. Bill Russell has 11 NBA rings. Jordan has 6. YET most people call Jordan the greatest ever!!!

That's because NBA experts/fans (as well as those of nearly ever sport) realize that certain accomplishments become harder as time goes on. Every sport except tennis. Funny how that works.

thrust
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:11 AM
didn't court also play in the days of challenge round?? or did that end before her
That's a new one! The challenge round ended in the mid or early 1920's. Also, Court had a slightly higher winning % than Evert did.

AnomyBC
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:56 AM
That's because NBA experts/fans (as well as those of nearly ever sport) realize that certain accomplishments become harder as time goes on. Every sport except tennis. Funny how that works.

In terms of tennis, it depends on what eras you're comparing. In general I would argue that it's easier to win a large number of majors in the open era than in the pre-open era simply because the players have more opportunities to enter and win the major tournaments. These days players compete in 4 major tournaments per year, but that really didn't become the norm until 1983. Before that, most players didn't play the Australian Open and hence only had 3 opportunities per year to win a major. And then in the pre-Open Era, at least on the men's side, there was the whole issue of the pro tour, which resulted in players like Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales being barred from all 4 majors for many of their peak years (although I've always felt that the 3 pro majors should be counted in these players total majors, which would partially correct this issue) and then there was the issue of the two World Wars, during which time players generally only had 1 opportunity to win a major per year---and in the case of players that weren't able to get to US, they had no opportunities. So players today are really kind of spoiled in terms of the number of chances they get per year to win majors.

Anyway, this is how I would rank the decades in terms of how difficult it was win a major.....

Most Difficult Decades to Win a Major since 1900

1. 1910's (no plane travel to majors on other continents, World War I)
2. 1900's (no plane travel to majors on other continents)
3. 1920's (very little, if any, plane travel to majors on other continents)
4. 1940's (World War II)
5. 1930's (plane travel to majors on other continents still very limited)
6. 1970's (for the first time, all of tennis's best players are able to compete against each other without restrictions---and get paid for it---and most don't play the Australian Open which creates more intense competition for the other 3 majors. This is probably tennis's peak era in terms of both quality and the number of big name players.)
7. 1980's (for the first few years of the 1980's it was just as difficult to win a major as it was in the 1970's, but then it got a little easier around 1983 when the top players began treating the Australian Open like a real major.)
8 and 9. 1990's and 2000's (I'm not sure which decade was more difficult, but due to everyone playing the Australian Open I think it was little easier to win a major during these decades then it was during the 1970's and 1980's)
10. 1950's (this is when a lot players started leaving the amateur tour to become professionals and because of that it was easier for the amateurs to win majors.)
11. 1960's (during this decade, most of the best players like Laver and Rosewall were playing the pro tour, so in terms of the amateur players I think this was probably the easiest decade for them to win majors.)

So yeah, some of that stuff didn't actually effect the women's tour, but my point is the level of difficulty goes up and down from decade to decade and it in many cases it was actually more difficult to win majors in the past than it is today.

AnomyBC
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:59 AM
didn't court also play in the days of challenge round?? or did that end before her

No, she didn't. That ended in the 1920's. A lot of her titles were at the Australian Open though and a lot of the top players didn't play there back then.

AtTheBottom
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:38 AM
She'll have to win one more French Open for sure and prove she can play on clay for real when it matters.

BlameSerena
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:40 AM
Do we really need to discuss why Sampras, a male athlete, is considered greater than Graf, a female athlete? :confused:

As for Graf/Court comparison, Steffi won all her titles in the open era.

Why not? We seem to compare the ATP to the WTA regularly around here...

Lindsayfan32
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:12 AM
Until she comes even close to winning 24 slams this thread and discussion are a dead issue. The only people who see Serena as the goat are Serena and her fans. The only player who comes close to Margaret Court in the goat debate is Steffi Graf and she won 22 so while Serena is the greatest of her generation she no where near being the goat. Feel free to re open this discussion when and if Serena get anywhere near it. Right now threads that consider Serena the goat are just a joke.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:24 AM
That's a new one! The challenge round ended in the mid or early 1920's. Also, Court had a slightly higher winning % than Evert did.

just a question take your panties out of the bunch :rolls:

Rollo
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:44 AM
Posted by Phoenix Storm Well, it certainly isn't the number of slams otherwise Court would be considered the greatest player ever. She isn't. Steffi has less slams yet she is considered greater than court.

A lot of the "Steffi is considered the greatest ever" comes from time-people tend to forget the past quickly. Before Steffi it was Martina, before Martina it was Chris--the pattern is clear. In Court's day it was Court.

That's why we are having this thread. Rena is the new kid on the block. In 20 years it will someone else.

Good luck to her. I'd rather see Venus bag a few more Wimbledons, but Serena winning 15 or more slams DOES put her in the GOAT guessing game conversation, and that can only be fun:)

supergrunt
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:59 AM
in the eyes of some "tennis experts" she's not even the best of her generation... so best ever is out of the question

tennisIlove09
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:30 AM
Graf won every major at least 4 times. She is, in my mind, the greatest SINGLES player of all time.
Navratilova is the greatest PLAYER of all time, in the sense that she won singles, doubles and mixed for years.

For Serena to pass Graf, she would have to win the French at least 2 more times. She would then have every major at least 3 times. Considering she's in a 'tougher' era, that would do it for me.

Sharapower
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:57 AM
Serena is a great player, there's no discussion about that. I doubt that in the future any player will top her GS achievements (and to some extent I hope that, I don't like a tour where there's one great domination and all the rest just trailing behind... {except if that one is Sharapova :lol:}).
However Serena has a big problem of consistency. If we compare with Graf, just a stat:
WTA Tour singles titles:
Graf: 107
Serena: 34
During 10 seasons (87-96), Graf had won at least 1 GS each year. Since her first major, Serena has had 3 seasons without GS titles.

So if we assume that there's such thing as a relevant "GOAT" status, Serena is not yet a contender, really.

Geisha
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:17 AM
Serena is a great player, there's no discussion about that. I doubt that in the future any player will top her GS achievements (and to some extent I hope that, I don't like a tour where there's one great domination and all the rest just trailing behind... {except if that one is Sharapova :lol:}).
However Serena has a big problem of consistency. If we compare with Graf, just a stat:
WTA Tour singles titles:
Graf: 107
Serena: 34
During 10 seasons (87-96), Graf had won at least 1 GS each year. Since her first major, Serena has had 3 seasons without GS titles.

So if we assume that there's such thing as a relevant "GOAT" status, Serena is not yet a contender, really.

that's an incredibly biased statistic.

Volcana
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:25 AM
She's not going to win 25 Grand Slams singles titles.Three of four for the next four years .....

it's possible ....

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:48 AM
Just wait it out..right now she should have two or three more years where she's a contender/favourite at the two hardcourt majors, serious candidate at Wimby and a dangerous threat at RG.

So that's three majors..if she can mantain her focus, can easily see her win 4 or 5 more majors. Who would' ve thought this after the abysmal 2006?

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:05 AM
For one reason or another, some people will never see Serena as a G.O.A.T contender. Even if she DID finish with more majors than Court. People would still find reason to dimish her achievements. I, even as a STAUNCH supporter, know that she's got an uphill battle to climb if she seriously wants to be part of the conversation. If she accomplishes these things, I think she's safely part of the All-Time discussion:
5-7 more majors (at least 2 more French Opens and 2 more Australian Opens - giving her the Open Era record)
2-3 more Miami titles (giving her another Open Era record)
1-2 more YEC titles
1-2 more years as Y.E. #1
20 more titles.
Finishing her career with a W/L% that's higher than 85%.

If she plays healthy, motivated tennis for the next 4-6 years (she's talked about playing until Chicago), she should be fine. It would also be great if she collected those last 2 mixed majors to finish off the boxed set. And an Olympic Singles medal for good measure.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:10 AM
....and while I disagree with those that say that Serena's competition was tougher, I DO agree that the game is MUCH more physically demanding now than it's EVER been. Serves @ 120mph+. Groudstrokes at almost 100mph? That's something that the champions from yesteryear NEVER had to deal with.

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:22 AM
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.

I think you are answering your own question in Serena's

favor. But their is a main perspective no one ever

considers in this debate. I agree with Jon Worthiem's

opinion on this very important aspect:

But I do agree with Roger's other premise: Head-to-head, Serena beats everyone. Ply all the greats with the same racket, pit them in a tournament and my money is on Williams . And I think that should have some bearing on how history recalls her. As I wrote last week, Serena will not surpass the Slam total of Evert, Martina, Court or Graf . But a few more majors and I think we have to speak seriously about her as a female GOAT candidate.


Correct me if I am wrong but I think this

Article was written after AO '07 Which would

mean Serena has gotten 3 more GS titles since

then.

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:36 AM
I get confused whenever I see the title 'greatest ever' appear, anyways to answer the question it kind of depends what era you became enthralled in tennis and whether you have the ability to remove your fan bias? If a 10 year old starting watching tennis in the last few weeks then they will say Serena Williams because that's all they've seen. Going on slams only I would suggest Margaret Court. I highly doubt her record is going to be broken because the competition and technology used is vastly different now than when Margaret was playing, I just can't see anyone ever being a single dominant figure over the current competition.

Speaking of Majors, 3 of the last 4 is not dominant?

moby
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:52 AM
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.Strange phrasing. You make it sound as though 15 GS singles titles is an afterthought; 15 is, you know, more Slam titles than any man has won in the history of tennis. That might have something to do with people calling Fed the GOAT. :lol:

Lindsayfan32
Jul 8th, 2009, 08:31 AM
Graf won every major at least 4 times. She is, in my mind, the greatest SINGLES player of all time.
Navratilova is the greatest PLAYER of all time, in the sense that she won singles, doubles and mixed for years.

For Serena to pass Graf, she would have to win the French at least 2 more times. She would then have every major at least 3 times. Considering she's in a 'tougher' era, that would do it for me.

As far as the goat debate goes it goes in this order Court or Graf first Serena a very distant third she not even in the picture She would have win the french another 2 times to put her ahead of Graf is a joke. It still put her 11 slams behind Graf so that means she still not even close. The only people who see Serena as the goat are Serena's fan who think the sun shine out of her backside and just can't accept there are two players that are better than her. Unless she play for another 5 or so years and wins almost every slam in that time she never going to come close to be goat.

Sharapower
Jul 8th, 2009, 09:19 AM
that's an incredibly biased statistic.
What is biased about it???
Those are IMO the most basic indicators to assess a player's career with the least subjectivity as possible :lol:.
If you can provide better objective criteria, please do, that will be a great contribution for all the future discussions about GOAT's and you'll enter into posterity :p.

VivalaSeles
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:30 AM
More 8-10 Slams.

Anabelcroft
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:34 PM
As far as the goat debate goes it goes in this order Court or Graf first Serena a very distant third she not even in the picture She would have win the french another 2 times to put her ahead of Graf is a joke. It still put her 11 slams behind Graf so that means she still not even close. The only people who see Serena as the goat are Serena's fan who think the sun shine out of her backside and just can't accept there are two players that are better than her. Unless she play for another 5 or so years and wins almost every slam in that time she never going to come close to be goat.

I don't see how she could be third...In singles it should be:

1.Graf
2.Navratilova or Court
3.Evert
and after them Serena

Sorry if I forgot Wills-Moody or someone else...

supergrunt
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:54 PM
well too be fair only 4 more

supergrunt
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:54 PM
and in one of those 4 would have to be another french

thrust
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:57 PM
....and while I disagree with those that say that Serena's competition was tougher, I DO agree that the game is MUCH more physically demanding now than it's EVER been. Serves @ 120mph+. Groudstrokes at almost 100mph? That's something that the champions from yesteryear NEVER had to deal with.

Good points, well made.

Andy.
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:59 PM
About 10 more slams in singles and at least another 100 titles and even then she still might not be the greatest ever.

thrust
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:10 PM
If they counted the Men's Pro Slams, Rosewall would have 23, Laver 19, Gonzalez would have 14. Ken Rosewall is the most underrated great player ever. If you took away his 4 Slams before he turned Pro, he still would have 19 Slam titles. Federer won most of his Slams in a very weak era. Until Nadal came along, noone could beat him in a Slam final. It was like Evert not having a Navratilova to contend with.

Bijoux0021
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:29 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9757816/Serena-could-be-the-best-ever,-but-...

Serena could be the best ever, but ...

by Jason Whitlock

Updated: July 7, 2009, 6:09 PM EDT

In addition to talking about Roger Federer and his record-breaking 15th Grand Slam title, we should also be celebrating Serena Williams and her assault on Margaret Court's record.

The problem is, even after knocking off her sister in Saturday's Wimbledon singles final, Serena isn't anywhere close to Court's 24 Grand Slam singles titles.

At age 27 — the same age as Federer — Serena owns just half as many major titles (11) as Steffi Graf, the greatest women's player of all time. That's a terrible shame.

With a reduction in glut, a little less butt and a smidgen more guts, Serena Williams would easily be as big as Michael Jackson, dwarf Tiger Woods and take a run at Rosa Parks.

You can call me unfair. You can even scream that I'm sexist.

But there's an inescapable truth about Serena Williams: She's an underachiever.

And all the people making excuses for Serena and rationalizing her failure to totally dominate women's tennis are the very people uninterested in seeing women rise to a level of equality with men.

Serena Williams has all the ingredients to be Michael Jordan, Jim Brown and Muhammad Ali rolled into one made-for-TV package. She is quite possibly the most gifted female athlete in our lifetime.

Unfortunately for us, she lacks the courage to fulfill her destiny.

She'd rather eat, half-ass her way through non-major tournaments and complain she's not getting the respect her 11-major-championships résumé demands.

She complains about being ranked No. 2 in the world when she's not bitching on Twitter or her blog about new rules that forbid Wimbledon players from eating in the locker room.

Seriously, how else can Serena fill out her size 16 shorts without grazing at her stall between matches?

I know, you think I'm a hypocrite. No, I'm not. Sports writers are supposed to be plump and lazy. I'm fulfilling my destiny.

And you probably think I don't like Serena. You're wrong. I love her. She's the main reason I watch tennis. She's fascinating. Her power and skill are breathtaking. And when she's in shape, she's every bit as sexy as Beyonce.

I know, sex appeal isn't supposed to matter in sports. That's such a load of (spit). Television sells sex appeal in men's sports, too. You think being tall, dark and handsome didn't significantly enhance Jordan's appeal? You think Joe Namath, Joe Montana and Tom Brady haven't been sold as sex symbols?

Appearance matters in televised sports. The whining last week about Wimbledon's admission that attractiveness plays a role in determining who plays on Centre Court struck me as disingenuous, politically correct bull crap.

During this year's Wimbledon, Serena and Safina played Court 2 while hot, lesser stars battled on Centre Court. Safina can blame genetics for her fate. Serena only has herself to blame. God gave Serena everything, including drop-dead looks.

She's chosen to smother some of it in an unsightly layer of thick, muscled blubber, a byproduct of her unwillingness to commit to a training regimen and diet that would have her at the top of her game year-round.

Serena simply isn't obsessed with tennis perfection. She seems to play the game solely because she's good at it. Not because she has a burning desire to be the best there ever was. That is her right.

And it's my right to rip her for choosing to be a celebrity tennis player rather than a single-minded tennis assassin.

If she chose the latter, it would be front-page news every time she lost a tournament. She'd complete the Serena Slam — winning all four majors — every other year. She'd be the most popular and powerful female athlete of all time.

Tiger Woods couldn't touch her. Roger Federer would be reduced to shagging her balls. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant would be the little kids in the Nike commercial bragging that they lived downstairs from Serena and Venus Williams.

Think about it. At 5-foot-9, 145 pounds, Serena would be unstoppable on the court, on the cover of every magazine still in circulation and downloaded on the Internet three times more often than Anna Kournikova.

Instead, Serena is arguably pushing 175 pounds, content playing hard only in the major tournaments, happy to be photographed on dates with pro athletes and proud to serve as a role model for women with oversized back packs.

BBWs — Big Booty Women — do not write me angry e-mails. I'm only knocking Serena's back pack because it's preventing her from reaching her full potential as an athletic icon. I am not fundamentally opposed to junk in the trunk, although my preference is a stuffed onion over an oozing pumpkin.

(A stuffed onion is a booty so round and tight that it brings tears to your eyes).

I'm sorry. I digress.

Serena has limitless potential. Tennis is the platform that could open doors for her and other women. Her parents raised her to speak her mind. She's bright.

She could break the glass ceiling for female athletes and become the transcendent superstar who connects globally. She could join Oprah and Madonna. Serena could be an impossible-to-ignore advocate for any position she supported.

Right now I'd put on Serena on par with Paris Hilton. I know that's harsh. Serena's accomplishments are far more substantive than Hilton's. But Paris Hilton doesn't have one discernible skill (that I can publish in this column without earning it an R rating). Hilton's monumental overachievement is her accomplishment of becoming a celebrity.

Serena's greatest feat might be avoiding establishing herself as the greatest tennis player of all time.

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:57 PM
....and while I disagree with those that say that Serena's competition was tougher, I DO agree that the game is MUCH more physically demanding now than it's EVER been. Serves @ 120mph+. Groudstrokes at almost 100mph? That's something that the champions from yesteryear NEVER had to deal with.



:worship::worship::worship:

Thanx4nothin
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:02 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9757816/Serena-could-be-the-best-ever,-but-...

Serena could be the best ever, but ...

by Jason Whitlock

Updated: July 7, 2009, 6:09 PM EDT

In addition to talking about Roger Federer and his record-breaking 15th Grand Slam title, we should also be celebrating Serena Williams and her assault on Margaret Court's record.

The problem is, even after knocking off her sister in Saturday's Wimbledon singles final, Serena isn't anywhere close to Court's 24 Grand Slam singles titles.

At age 27 — the same age as Federer — Serena owns just half as many major titles (11) as Steffi Graf, the greatest women's player of all time. That's a terrible shame.

With a reduction in glut, a little less butt and a smidgen more guts, Serena Williams would easily be as big as Michael Jackson, dwarf Tiger Woods and take a run at Rosa Parks.

You can call me unfair. You can even scream that I'm sexist.

But there's an inescapable truth about Serena Williams: She's an underachiever.

And all the people making excuses for Serena and rationalizing her failure to totally dominate women's tennis are the very people uninterested in seeing women rise to a level of equality with men.

Serena Williams has all the ingredients to be Michael Jordan, Jim Brown and Muhammad Ali rolled into one made-for-TV package. She is quite possibly the most gifted female athlete in our lifetime.

Unfortunately for us, she lacks the courage to fulfill her destiny.

She'd rather eat, half-ass her way through non-major tournaments and complain she's not getting the respect her 11-major-championships résumé demands.

She complains about being ranked No. 2 in the world when she's not bitching on Twitter or her blog about new rules that forbid Wimbledon players from eating in the locker room.

Seriously, how else can Serena fill out her size 16 shorts without grazing at her stall between matches?

I know, you think I'm a hypocrite. No, I'm not. Sports writers are supposed to be plump and lazy. I'm fulfilling my destiny.

And you probably think I don't like Serena. You're wrong. I love her. She's the main reason I watch tennis. She's fascinating. Her power and skill are breathtaking. And when she's in shape, she's every bit as sexy as Beyonce.

I know, sex appeal isn't supposed to matter in sports. That's such a load of (spit). Television sells sex appeal in men's sports, too. You think being tall, dark and handsome didn't significantly enhance Jordan's appeal? You think Joe Namath, Joe Montana and Tom Brady haven't been sold as sex symbols?

Appearance matters in televised sports. The whining last week about Wimbledon's admission that attractiveness plays a role in determining who plays on Centre Court struck me as disingenuous, politically correct bull crap.

During this year's Wimbledon, Serena and Safina played Court 2 while hot, lesser stars battled on Centre Court. Safina can blame genetics for her fate. Serena only has herself to blame. God gave Serena everything, including drop-dead looks.

She's chosen to smother some of it in an unsightly layer of thick, muscled blubber, a byproduct of her unwillingness to commit to a training regimen and diet that would have her at the top of her game year-round.

Serena simply isn't obsessed with tennis perfection. She seems to play the game solely because she's good at it. Not because she has a burning desire to be the best there ever was. That is her right.

And it's my right to rip her for choosing to be a celebrity tennis player rather than a single-minded tennis assassin.

If she chose the latter, it would be front-page news every time she lost a tournament. She'd complete the Serena Slam — winning all four majors — every other year. She'd be the most popular and powerful female athlete of all time.

Tiger Woods couldn't touch her. Roger Federer would be reduced to shagging her balls. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant would be the little kids in the Nike commercial bragging that they lived downstairs from Serena and Venus Williams.

Think about it. At 5-foot-9, 145 pounds, Serena would be unstoppable on the court, on the cover of every magazine still in circulation and downloaded on the Internet three times more often than Anna Kournikova.

Instead, Serena is arguably pushing 175 pounds, content playing hard only in the major tournaments, happy to be photographed on dates with pro athletes and proud to serve as a role model for women with oversized back packs.

BBWs — Big Booty Women — do not write me angry e-mails. I'm only knocking Serena's back pack because it's preventing her from reaching her full potential as an athletic icon. I am not fundamentally opposed to junk in the trunk, although my preference is a stuffed onion over an oozing pumpkin.

(A stuffed onion is a booty so round and tight that it brings tears to your eyes).

I'm sorry. I digress.

Serena has limitless potential. Tennis is the platform that could open doors for her and other women. Her parents raised her to speak her mind. She's bright.

She could break the glass ceiling for female athletes and become the transcendent superstar who connects globally. She could join Oprah and Madonna. Serena could be an impossible-to-ignore advocate for any position she supported.

Right now I'd put on Serena on par with Paris Hilton. I know that's harsh. Serena's accomplishments are far more substantive than Hilton's. But Paris Hilton doesn't have one discernible skill (that I can publish in this column without earning it an R rating). Hilton's monumental overachievement is her accomplishment of becoming a celebrity.

Serena's greatest feat might be avoiding establishing herself as the greatest tennis player of all time.




/.../ Riteo.....:scared:

Some of it makes sense though.

2Black
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:05 PM
tHAT'S tYPICAL jASON wHITLOCK ... He says some true things but most of his articles go way overboard & include a lot of fluff to garner attention.

Anabelcroft
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:07 PM
It does...but also the fact that Serena will need so much more to do if she want's to be lose to Graf,Navratilova and Evert...I don't think she has all the time of the world to do that...she is or will be this year 28 already!

thrust
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:25 PM
tHAT'S tYPICAL jASON wHITLOCK ... He says some true things but most of his articles go way overboard & include a lot of fluff to garner attention.

So it seems, to say the least! I am not a Serena fan, but really, that was way over the top.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:12 PM
that was sensationalist bullshit at its BEST.

Comparing Serena to Paris Hilton, or calling her a Size 16?

Come on dude :rolleyes:

Anabelcroft
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I agree...

Havok
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:10 AM
Even though she has two more Slams, the Grand Slam and a nice double Slam records. I find it hard to put Serena above Seles due to her unfortunate circumstances.

Honestly the only reason why people might be debating Serena and the GOAT status is because after Henin retired, nobody besides Serena has a career which can rival the very best who played the game. It would take Serena at least another 6-8 more Slams under her belt, not to mention another Roland Garros title or two for her to even be considered the greatest of all time. She can definitely do it with the sad and pathetic state of the Tour as this very moment. All depends on her injuries, her will and also her focus on whether or not she will achieve such a status.

Havok
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:13 AM
....and while I disagree with those that say that Serena's competition was tougher, I DO agree that the game is MUCH more physically demanding now than it's EVER been. Serves @ 120mph+. Groudstrokes at almost 100mph? That's something that the champions from yesteryear NEVER had to deal with.
Agreed but players of today have those weapons in their arsenal. Players of yesteryear did not have to face these types of shots NOR did they have them at their own disposal.

Some give and take.;)

V's a star
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:33 AM
I think she wud need 19-20 slams. At that point i think u cud go ok, tennis is alot more physical and has much more pressure then when Steffi was playing and u cud give Serena GOAT

Anabelcroft
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:46 AM
What do you mean by "more physical"?Steffi was and even now at the age of 40 much better physical prepared than most top players...

spencercarlos
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:23 AM
What do you mean by "more physical"?Steffi was and even now at the age of 40 much better physical prepared than most top players...
Don´t even bother, there is no way Serena will ever be considered the GOAT, she is not even top 4. She has not dominated the sport the way others have for so many years consecutively, sorry but let Serena win more slams now but there is no way she will get to 20 grand slams, let alone 22 to get even with Graf, who still despite all of her legacy is not considered clearly the GOAT.

Anabelcroft
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:34 AM
True...and if Graf is not singles GOAT,who is?And by what standard?

Justin SW
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:26 AM
To win another RG Single title. To win the Gold Medal in Singles. To win the two missing Mixed Slams (RG and AO...not sure :p ). and that's it! The Grand Slam BOX :)

Marcus1979
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Graf won every slam at least 4 times

Australian Open (4): 1988, 1989, 1990, 1994
Roland Garros (6): 1987, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999
Wimbledon (7): 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996
US Open (5): 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996

here is Serena's haul so far
Australian Open (4): 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009
Roland Garros (1): 2002
Wimbledon (3): 2002, 2003, 2009
US Open (3): 1999, 2002, 2008

azinna
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:41 PM
There are no GOATs playing men's or women's tennis. There never has been, and (hopefully) there never will.

But if Serena can win seven more slam single's titles of any type, everyone should feel comfortable having her name in a sentence discussing Court, Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

bandabou
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:22 PM
Graf won every slam at least 4 times

Australian Open (4): 1988, 1989, 1990, 1994
Roland Garros (6): 1987, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999
Wimbledon (7): 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996
US Open (5): 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996

here is Serena's haul so far
Australian Open (4): 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009
Roland Garros (1): 2002
Wimbledon (3): 2002, 2003, 2009
US Open (3): 1999, 2002, 2008

not bad huh? If she can add another rg would be great.

sweetpeas
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:27 PM
She"s the greatest to me!I live for me!So who cares>>>>>..

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:11 PM
She"s the greatest to me!I live for me!So who cares>>>>>..

:worship:

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:26 PM
To win another RG Single title. To win the Gold Medal in Singles. To win the two missing Mixed Slams (RG and AO...not sure :p ). and that's it! The Grand Slam BOX :)

Boxed Set.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:27 PM
Yep the Boxed Set. Something no other active woman is capable of except Serena.

fufuqifuqishahah
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:56 PM
oh...and for me, i think one more clearly dominant streak of like 8-12 months, would put her in the running.

yup 16-18

it would also be nice if she won another French

so i guess.... (being a little bit realistic... and retiring at 32)

US Open 2009 - 12
AUS 2010 - (doesn't win)
French 2010 - (doesn't win)
Wimbledon 2010 - (doesn't win)
US Open 2010 - 14
AUS 2011 - 15
French 2011 - 16
Wimbledon 2011 - (doesn't win)
US Open 2011 - (doesn't win)
Aus 2012 - (doesn't win)
French 2012 - (doesn't win)
Wimbledon 2012 - 17
US Open 2012 - (doesn't win)
Aus 2013 - 18
French 2013 - (doesn't win)
Wimbledon 2013 - (doesn't win)
US Open 2013 - 19

Marcus1979
Jul 11th, 2009, 09:29 PM
not bad huh? If she can add another rg would be great.

no kiddin would like her to win the French open maybe once or twice more before she finishes up be a good legacy :)

altho in saying that Navratilova is also considered one of the greats only won the French just the two times.

Australian Open (3): 1981, 1983, 1985
Roland Garros (2): 1982, 1984
Wimbledon (9): 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990
US Open (4): 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:10 AM
Yep the Boxed Set. Something no other active woman is capable of except Serena.

no other active player ;)

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:15 AM
yup 16-18

it would also be nice if she won another French

so i guess.... (being a little bit realistic... and retiring at 32)

US Open 2009 - 12
AUS 2010 - (doesn't win)
French 2010 - (doesn't win)
Wimbledon 2010 - (doesn't win)
US Open 2010 - 14
AUS 2011 - 15
French 2011 - 16
Wimbledon 2011 - (doesn't win)
US Open 2011 - (doesn't win)
Aus 2012 - (doesn't win)
French 2012 - (doesn't win)
Wimbledon 2012 - 17
US Open 2012 - (doesn't win)
Aus 2013 - 18
French 2013 - (doesn't win)
Wimbledon 2013 - (doesn't win)
US Open 2013 - 19

so when does she win #13 :lol: GOATrena ignores maths systems as well :worship: lol :p

OsloErik
Jul 12th, 2009, 04:46 AM
I don't see how she could be third...In singles it should be:

1.Graf
2.Navratilova or Court
3.Evert
and after them Serena

Sorry if I forgot Wills-Moody or someone else...

Navratilova ahead of Evert in the singles department? Evert has a very good argument for #1 singles player of all time. Navratilova trails her in almost every department in singles career achievements.

My list would go:

#1: Graf or Evert
#2: Graf or Evert
#3: Court or Navratilova
#4: Court or Navratilova

and then the rest of the field. But to get into that group you need at least two of each slam. Serena works into the discussion with another French title, but she still has to build some legacy before she pulls ahead of everyone in the group.

Dave.
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:29 AM
Navratilova ahead of Evert in the singles department? Evert has a very good argument for #1 singles player of all time. Navratilova trails her in almost every department in singles career achievements.

My list would go:

#1: Graf or Evert
#2: Graf or Evert
#3: Court or Navratilova
#4: Court or Navratilova

and then the rest of the field. But to get into that group you need at least two of each slam. Serena works into the discussion with another French title, but she still has to build some legacy before she pulls ahead of everyone in the group.


How?

In The Zone
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:41 AM
I definitely think Serena can match Evert/Navratilova and depending on her motivation, she can even catch Graf. This is, of course, if she keeps up this form and commitment.

She has to win another French title and add another important achievement such as a calendar slam. She needs to bolster her resume more to be considered GOAT. An Olympic Gold wouldn't be bad, either.

DefyingGravity
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:47 AM
As long as Serena performs well and is healthy, she can be considered the greatest player of the 2000's by far because she has the capacity to do well everywhere. The problem is that she does show up everywhere out of shape or injured and needs one slam to work her way into form for the other two or three.

If she can get to a middle range teen number, she could totally trump Justine for the 2000's.

She will never be greatest of all time because it's all speculative, era-based, and what if match ups.

Matt01
Jul 12th, 2009, 09:24 AM
Navratilova ahead of Evert in the singles department? Evert has a very good argument for #1 singles player of all time. Navratilova trails her in almost every department in singles career achievements.


Err...no she doesn't :)

Anabelcroft
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Navratilova ahead of Evert in the singles department? Evert has a very good argument for #1 singles player of all time. Navratilova trails her in almost every department in singles career achievements.

My list would go:

#1: Graf or Evert
#2: Graf or Evert
#3: Court or Navratilova
#4: Court or Navratilova

and then the rest of the field. But to get into that group you need at least two of each slam. Serena works into the discussion with another French title, but she still has to build some legacy before she pulls ahead of everyone in the group.

Graf is on the top of the list for sure,but I based my number 2 and 3 on some stats like:

-H2H Navratilova leads Evert 43-37
-weeks as number 1 player Navratilova leads Evert by 332:260
-consecutive weeks as number 1 player Navratilova leads Evert 156-113
-year end number 1 player Navratilova leads Evert 7:5

If there are some stats in Evert favor please post them,it will be interesting to see them...

Thkmra
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Don´t even bother, there is no way Serena will ever be considered the GOAT, she is not even top 4. She has not dominated the sport the way others have for so many years consecutively, sorry but let Serena win more slams now but there is no way she will get to 20 grand slams, let alone 22 to get even with Graf, who still despite all of her legacy is not considered clearly the GOAT.

:lol::lol: Serena hasn't dominated the sport like other?:eek:

And Serena is already top 4, soon to push even further!:weirdo: I mean seriously the ways in which people still try to discredit Serena is just absurdly astonishing!!:help:

simplydeep
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:52 PM
I think Serena is the greatest of her era and is imo one of the greats along with the other just a little further down the list so no prob she still there

StephenUK
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Serena will never be the greatest ever, mainly because of her quite mediocre tally of WTA tour wins. She has only won 34 tour titles, which is 21 fewer than Lindsay Davenport and also fewer than Venus, Hingis or Henin. I think she has only just about equalled Kim Clijsters, which is pretty dismal, considering Kim is two years younger and has been retired for 18 months. She will be turning 30 in two years, which means she has two years to win 75 more titles if she is to equal Steffi Graf. She will be having to play until she is 70 at the same level if she is to get ahead of the likes of Graf, Navratilova and Evert.

Serena is undoubtedly a great but the greatest of all time, never.

Kabezya
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:38 PM
I think Serena is the greatest of her era and is imo one of the greats along with the other just a little further down the list so no prob she still there

I see it the same way.

Matt01
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:15 PM
Step to this:

Serena will never be the greatest ever.

:wavey:

Warrior
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:14 PM
Step to this:

Serena will never be the greatest ever.

:wavey:

never say never

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:46 PM
Step to this:

Serena will never be the greatest ever to me.

:wavey:

I edited it for you :wavey:

"greatness" is a subjective word.

"Winningest" is more precise. Yes, Serena will never the winningest player in Women's Tennis. But that doesn't necessarily mean a player with a smaller resume isn't a greater player in the minds of some.

mboyle
Jul 14th, 2009, 01:19 AM
Well the ONLY reason Nav has an argument over Graf is that Nav dominates a few key statistics: better competition (Evert), more overall titles, much better doubles career, longest winning streak, most slam titles in a row, best record against top ten players, and a few others.

Serena has no shot of even matching Graf/Nav on most of those key areas. This era isn't more competitive than Evert/Nav. Yes, the bottom is better, but as the bottom rises, so too should the top. Serena doesn't get out-played when she loses in the first round of Marbella. She just doesn't show up, because she is not as consistent as the all time greats. Thus, if Serena is going to make a case for GOAT, she will have to build it ENTIRELY on grand slams, because that is the area where she shines.

1. She's going to have to win 11 more, to get to 23 (Court's 24 are diminished when you consider 11 of them are Australian Open titles, so Graf is my standard here).
2. She's going to have to win a calendar slam (Steffi won calendar AND non calendar, Serena has to match that at least).

Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, Serena would have to sustain the best tennis of her career from now until age 32. It isn't impossible, but it isn't likely. I think she'll more likely finish with between 15 and 18.

serenafan08
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:17 AM
I think she's the greatest of her generation, and quite honestly that is good all by itself. Serena has done so much for the game that her "greatness" can't be measured by how many Grand Slams she has. She and her sister raised the bar to new heights. They ran faster, hit harder and made the rest of the tour get on their level. I still think you have to put Graf, Navratilova and Evert ahead of Serena, but she definitely can be #4 on that list.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2009, 09:47 AM
Serena's such a rare specimen/ odd case. The ultimate: " I only get up for tier I and better tournaments." I mean she has 34 career titles...12 majors and 10 tier I's! That's simply unprecedented!

Because she doesn't play/care as much as she should about the lil tourneys, she won't put up the numbers needed to be greatest ever. But if she keeps being this clutch as the biggies..her name should certainly be way up there.

I mean not many people can have: career slam, yec, miami, iw, charleston, rome, canada... just out of 34 career titles!

Morrissey
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:36 AM
I don't think Serena cares about being the "greatest" female tennis player ever. We already know Serena is the BEST female tennis player of her generation since she has 11 slams. The interesting part is in 2007 Serena had 8 slams and Justine Henin had 7 slams. Henin was the ONLY player that was not afraid of Serena. Serena has no consistent challenger so of course Serena went on to win 3 out of the last 4 slams. The reason is Serena is so much better then the current competition including Venus. I think this is the reason people say the WTA is boring because Serena doesn't have a real rival right now. The ATP tour is more exciting because Federer has Nadal.If Nadal wasn't around Federer would win everything. The WTA needs a female Nadal to match Serena unfortunately the WTA just doesn't have that at the moment.

Morrissey
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:37 AM
I don't think it is fair to include Venus in the conversation with Serena they are two different people. Venus is an underachiever she has only won 7 slams she never won the Australian or French Open due to a lack of mental toughness. Serena is very mentally tough and very consistent in the slams that's why she has 11 slams and Venus only has 7.

chloe-l
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:39 AM
Serena will never be the greatest ever, mainly because of her quite mediocre tally of WTA tour wins. She has only won 34 tour titles, which is 21 fewer than Lindsay Davenport and also fewer than Venus, Hingis or Henin. I think she has only just about equalled Kim Clijsters, which is pretty dismal, considering Kim is two years younger and has been retired for 18 months. She will be turning 30 in two years, which means she has two years to win 75 more titles if she is to equal Steffi Graf. She will be having to play until she is 70 at the same level if she is to get ahead of the likes of Graf, Navratilova and Evert.

Serena is undoubtedly a great but the greatest of all time, never.

:worship:

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2009, 12:29 PM
:worship:

:worship: ????

Philbo
Jul 15th, 2009, 12:35 PM
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.

There is no 'correct' answer to your question Sam. I.E for me 'Greatest Ever' is a subjective title so it will always be open to interpretation.

For me though for Serena to be spoken about in the same league as Steffi/Martina/Court/Evert etc is she needs to have a list of achievements that compete with that top echelon of players.

As it stands, Serena's slam tally is far too short to be considered. I think once she gets above 15 or so then her slam tally is respectable in Greatest Ever debates. But she needs to do more than that. She needs to have a 3, 4, 5 year period of complete dominance that rivals the 5 year dominant periods that Steffi and Martina were able to chalk up. Longevity also comes into it IMO. Weeks at number 1 is a less important factor but a factor nontheless.

spencercarlos
Jul 15th, 2009, 02:29 PM
I edited it for you :wavey:

"greatness" is a subjective word.

"Winningest" is more precise. Yes, Serena will never the winningest player in Women's Tennis. But that doesn't necessarily mean a player with a smaller resume isn't a greater player in the minds of some.
How do you measure that then? What your arguments will be to support that?...