PDA

View Full Version : Who is the best double player in the history?


Joachim
Feb 12th, 2004, 01:31 PM
Martina Navratilova!!!

pigam
Feb 12th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Justine Henin ;) :p :rolleyes:.... Oh no, wait, that's the best singlesplayer in history :p ;) :eek:

for-sure
Feb 12th, 2004, 01:39 PM
Martina Hingis is #2. She won everything with EVERYONE

DA FOREHAND
Feb 12th, 2004, 01:59 PM
Martina Navratilova

Hingis probably isn't in the top five.

Shriver
Gigi
Natasha
Stubbs
Raymond
Court

All would be ranked above Hingis

Andy T
Feb 12th, 2004, 01:59 PM
Martina Navratilova!!!

By era (& backwards in time):

Right now: ???
i
Martina Hingis
i
Natalia Zvereva
i
Martina Navratilova
i
Billie Jean King
i
Darlene Hard
i
Margaret Osborne DuPont
i
Alice Marble
i
Elizabeth Ryan

Pamela Shriver
Feb 12th, 2004, 02:09 PM
Me!

Proof - I had to carry Martina, such a burden.

JulieC
Feb 12th, 2004, 02:13 PM
I think its Martina Navratilova. She is still playing and she is already 47 years old or something like that. The only thing that she hasn't won yet is a gold medal at the Olympics. But she wants to win it in Athens.

Pamela Shriver
Feb 12th, 2004, 02:16 PM
I think its Martina Navratilova. She is still playing and she is already 47 years old or something like that. The only thing that she hasn't won yet is a gold medal at the Olympics. But she wants to win it in Athens.
But she can't win unless I come out of retirement....

TonyP
Feb 12th, 2004, 02:58 PM
Interesting question.

Based on results, Navratilova was clearly the best.

Hingis the second best.

Raymond and Stubbs? Not even close. While doubles specialists, neither has won as many slam doubles titles as Hingis, much less a calender year grand slam. Hingis captured 9 slam doubles titles and 36 doubles titles overall and nobody ever claimed she was a doubles specialist. She sat at the very top of the singles rankings most of that time.

The other thing to remember is, Hingis won her 9 slam doubles titles with six different partners. Three of them, Kournkova, Pierce and Lucic, never won a major doubles title with anyone else.

Nobody carried Hingis. She carried others.

The three greatest doubles teams in women's tennis history were

Navratilova/Shriver

Zvereva/ Fernandez

Hingis and whoever her partner happened to be at the time.

LindsayRocks89
Feb 12th, 2004, 03:12 PM
i know she isnt close to be the best, but she still should be recognized, Lindsay Davenport

TonyP
Feb 12th, 2004, 04:50 PM
When asked once in an interview in Tennis Week magazine who was the toughest doubles opponent she ever faced, Natasha said "Hingis." She said Martina had better disguise on her shots than anyone she'd ever played.

And Zvereva has faced Navratilova.

Hingis in my view gets the nood because of the variety of people with whom she has won slams, the fact that she has that calendar year grand slam (something only three other women have done, Bueno, Navratilova/Shriver) and because Martina was also ruling singles at the time. Natasha, great as she was in doubles, only won four singles titles in her career. Hingis was simultaneously ranked number one in the world in both singles and doubles, something achieved by only four other women. (ASV, Davenport, Navratilova and Clijsters.)

When Natasha played with GiGi, they were an amazing pair. Martina was amazing no matter who she played with (which at the AO in '97, included Natasha.)

Renmenber, Hingis even partnered with Monica Seles, not exactly a legend in doubles, and beat the Williams sisters.

Can you imagine how many doubles titles she might have won had she just been a doubles specialist like Natasha or some of the others?

Indeed, look at Martina's record with Kournikova. They actually played something like 71 matches together and only lost four times. (they were defeated in several other walkovers when one or the other pulled out due to injury.

In terms of number of slam titles and doubles victories, Natasha comes out on top. But Hingis' overall abilities in doubles are simply greater than anyone's other than Navratilova.

And Martina number one pretty much admits that.

After she and Arantxa played and lost to Hingis/Kournilova in Germany in 2001 (I think) Martina N. aid she now felt she played every great player in doubles (during her own lifetime, I assume.)

But Navratilova didn't let it end there. Last fall at Staples Center, in an interview with Eurosport, Navratilova was trying to urge Hingis to come back so they could play doubles together, saying that would really cap off her career.

If you take women players and look at their entire careers, both singles and doubles, Hingis has to rate up there with Navratilova, King and Court.

LUIS9
Feb 12th, 2004, 05:23 PM
I think Tony P hit the nail in the right spot, Yes Hingis has only half of the number of slams as Zvereva, but Zvereva played for nearly a decade of doubles and entered twice as many doubles tournaments as Hingis ever did, besides the fact that she won titles with just about any decent player in doubles is proof of this. Yes Lucic inst or wasnt a pathetic doubles player but if it werent for Hingis i am pretty sure she would have not won that slam. Her doubles record is impressive, when paired with Kournikova she never lost more than one match for any given season they played together, and when paired with Novotna they were almost unbeatable. Shes even played with Capriati at the U.S open and made it to the 3rd round, lost due to lack of confidence back in late 01 and tired of playing both doubles and singles. Had Hingis played more doubles all of Zverevas #s would look average, she played less than half the number of tournies Zvereva played and won just about half of the # of titles Zvereva has and half the number of slams shes got too, i think she didnt take mixed as seriously or never played with a decent enough player to really be interested in pursuing the mixed, she simply was focused on her singles career and therefore where she practically outshined all of her peers during her generation.

Knizzle
Feb 12th, 2004, 05:25 PM
Martina Navratilova!!!

Duh!!!!

for-sure
Feb 12th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Venus and Serena Williams!

crazillo
Feb 12th, 2004, 05:30 PM
I think you all forget Jana Novotna, who was the number one and won several slams. She and Hinmgis are the best team together with Navratilova/Shriver and Fernandez/Zvereva, but they are not behind them.

DA FOREHAND
Feb 12th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Puhleeze....Hingis was a great player but she couldn't walk on water.

Navratilova
Shriver
Zverreva
Fernandez
Novotna
King
Court..........

TonyP
Feb 12th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Da......

See, there are two types of arguments, one in which you just state your opinion over and over again, and the other in which you cite facts, figures, specifics, etc. to actually back up your opinion.

I know the second method is a big pain, because you actually have to know the facts or know where to find them and be willing to do the work to list them.

But people should actually try the later some time, because its interesting. While Natasha Zvereva is a great player, she does NOT have a calendar yer grand slam. And you know what is even more fascinating?

The year Matina won her slam, 1998, the team Martina and her partners beat in all four of the slam finals was made up of Lindsay Davenport ....and Natasha Zvereva.

Interesting little facts like that make posting about tennis more colorful.

Its sort of like the thread on this board about who is the most interesting person in women's tennis. I named Hingis and cited specifics. Not everyone bothers to do that. In fact some said that just because we knew nothing about their outside activities, doesn't mean other players are not interesting. Right, but then why would you vote for them?

DA FOREHAND
Feb 12th, 2004, 07:07 PM
If simply winning the Calendar year Grand Slam was the prerequiste. Steffi Graf and Maggie Court would be the only names considered when discussion turned to The Greatest Ever.

griffin
Feb 12th, 2004, 07:16 PM
If simply winning the Calendar year Grand Slam was the prerequiste. Steffi Graf and Maggie Court would be the only names considered when discussion turned to The Greatest Ever.

And if that were TonyP's only reason for counting Hingis more successful than Tasha, you'd have a point.

As a doubles player, given her winning percentage and how many different partners she won with, I'd say Hingis is second only to Martina I.

DA FOREHAND
Feb 12th, 2004, 07:19 PM
I'm quite sure Venus and Serena's winning percentage is greater than Hingis'

Pam Shriver?
Gigi/and Natasha
BJK
MCourt

All have more doubles titles than Hingis.

fammmmedspin
Feb 12th, 2004, 07:22 PM
Da......

See, there are two types of arguments, one in which you just state your opinion over and over again, and the other in which you cite facts, figures, specifics, etc. to actually back up your opinion.

I know the second method is a big pain, because you actually have to know the facts or know where to find them and be willing to do the work to list them.

But people should actually try the later some time, because its interesting. While Natasha Zvereva is a great player, she does NOT have a calendar yer grand slam. And you know what is even more fascinating?

The year Matina won her slam, 1998, the team Martina and her partners beat in all four of the slam finals was made up of Lindsay Davenport ....and Natasha Zvereva.

Interesting little facts like that make posting about tennis more colorful.

Its sort of like the thread on this board about who is the most interesting person in women's tennis. I named Hingis and cited specifics. Not everyone bothers to do that. In fact some said that just because we knew nothing about their outside activities, doesn't mean other players are not interesting. Right, but then why would you vote for them?
Precisely. "Best" is subjective unless you just go for objective stats in which case Martina N wins. If "best" is about ability its quite possible for the "best" player to have a shorter career than the long term doubles stars. Martina H has a very, very strong case.The problem is even more subjective though because you would have to compare each player at their best and somehow measure the opposition they faced. Martina beat Natasha in 1998 but Natasha's best year wasn't 1998 (93?) so it still leaves the problem unsolved. Any guess which team faced more competition? Its even more difficult for doubles as the partner also plays a role - where did Natasha end and Gigi start and how do you compare established pair players with Martina Hingis who could play, and win, with players as various as Novotna and Lucic?

sylvain
Feb 13th, 2004, 07:14 AM
Martina Navratilova

Gigi Fernandez

Arantxa Sanchez

Natasha Zvereva

Jana Novotna

Paula Suarez

Jakeev
Feb 13th, 2004, 07:56 AM
Without a doubt Martina Navratilova. She has won more titles with more different types of players than any in history, men and women.

Right behind I would add Court, King, Shriver, Zvereva, Ryan, Osbourne-Dupont and Louise Brough.

tennisvideos
Feb 13th, 2004, 11:14 AM
So many great names:

Elizabeth Ryan
Suzanne Lenglen
Sarah Palfrey-Cooke
Shirley Fry
Louise Brough
Margaret Dupont
Margaret Court
Billie-Jean King & sidekick Casals with an honourable mention
Martina Navratilova & sidekick Shriver with an honourable mention
Natasha Zvereva / Gigi Fernandez
Martina Hingis

As far as great pairs go, hard to go past the following:
Elizabeth Ryan/Suzanne Lenglen
Sarah Palfrey Cooke/Alice Marble
Brough/Dupont
Fry/Hart
King/Casals
Navratilova/Shriver
Zvereva/Fernandez

I am surprised with how many different partners Margaret Court won her 19 GS doubles with - Mary Reitano, Robyn Ebbern, Lesley Turner, Maria Bueno, Judy Tegart, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade. It was much the same with her 21 GS Mixed titles as she won with Ken Fletcher, Bob Mark, Fred Stolle, John Newcombe, & super cute Marty Reissen ;) So like many of the other truly great doubles players, she was versatile and proved she could win with anyone.

Interesting too that Margaret played with a couple of lesbians to win some of her Slam titles! Funny in hindsight! :lol:

My special mention goes to the legendary Francoise Durr (how could I resist) who won 7 GS doubles titles with 4 different partners: Darlene Hard, Betty Stove, Gail Lovera, Anne Jones including 5 in succession in the French Championships beating such iconic pairs as King/Casals & Court/Richey. Also, she was runner up in 6 Wimbledon Finals - King beat her in 4 of those finals :fiery: Thank god she finally won a Wimbledon Mixed in 76 with Tony Roche! :worship:

tennisvideos
Feb 13th, 2004, 11:18 AM
As a footnote, I would LOVE to know how many doubles titles that King/Casals won during their illustrious careers, and likewise for Court.

I have a feeling all three won heaps of doubles titles (and Mixed) before the advent of Open tennis in 1968 and would place all 3 much closer to the top of the all time doubles title list.

azza
Feb 13th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Stubbs :)

SpikeyAidanm
Feb 13th, 2004, 11:57 AM
Ryan by far.

hingis-seles
Feb 13th, 2004, 12:36 PM
TonyP makes an awfully good case for Hingis being second only to Martina I. And unlike some posters, he is backing them up with stats.

tennisvideos, thanks for giving props to all the stars of years gone by, who all too often get lost in these discussions. :hearts:

DA FOREHAND
Feb 13th, 2004, 03:18 PM
TonyP makes an awfully good case for Hingis being second only to Martina I. And unlike some posters, he is backing them up with stats.

tennisvideos, thanks for giving props to all the stars of years gone by, who all too often get lost in these discussions. :hearts:


"I am surprised with how many different partners Margaret Court won her 19 GS doubles with - Mary Reitano, Robyn Ebbern, Lesley Turner, Maria Bueno, Judy Tegart, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade"

How bout we just give Martina best doubles player of her generation.

alfajeffster
Feb 13th, 2004, 04:12 PM
"I am surprised with how many different partners Margaret Court won her 19 GS doubles with - Mary Reitano, Robyn Ebbern, Lesley Turner, Maria Bueno, Judy Tegart, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade"

How bout we just give Martina best doubles player of her generation.
Margaret Court not only won 19 Women's Doubles majors, but 19 Mixed Majors as well, with all those different partners. This has to count for something. Navratilova didn't play that much mixed doubles until recently.

Andy T
Feb 13th, 2004, 04:40 PM
Martina has won 9 mixed doubles without playing that many during her prime (and didn't have the chance to play mixed in Australia until 87 as it had been discontinued) Court almost invariably played singles doubles and mixed, so Martina's tally is not bad (with various partners too. Her absolute record of 31 Grand Slam women's doubles titles (2/3 with Shriver + others with King, Nagelsen, Temesvari, Evert, Mandlikova, Gigi Fernandez and Stove) demonstrates both her supremacy and her versatility.

daniela86
Feb 13th, 2004, 04:53 PM
Martina stopped her career at only 21 years and she had time to win 9 Grand Slam titles,if she had not been injuried she probably would have had a greatest career than Martina Navratilova in doubles!
And Martina Hingis didn't consacrete much times for doubles(she didn't play much mixed doubles)she was focus on her single!(at the contrary of Stubbs,Raymond,Suarez,Ruano Pascual and many others "doubles specialists")

faboozadoo15
Feb 13th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Renmenber, Hingis even partnered with Monica Seles, not exactly a legend in doubles, and beat the Williams sisters.


hey now... monica came up with some awesome stuff in that match ;)

anyway, i think hingis being "right up there" is a strong case. but i'd put her at 4 or 5. it's kinda unfair to place her so highly over girls who won a lot more slams.

saki
Feb 13th, 2004, 05:44 PM
It all depends on your criteria. I'd agree with Tony P that in terms of ability Hingis is second only to Martina Navratilova. However, in terms of results, you have to put Gigi and Natasha (:kiss: God, she was amazing to watch... sorry, getting carried away...) ahead of her.

LUIS9
Feb 13th, 2004, 06:11 PM
Of course i dont think anyone is claiming here that Hingis is the all time doubles greatest player, Navratilova is the name! However in terms of ability anyone including Martina Nav would put Hingis ahead of just about any of the past great doubles players even probably ahead of Zvereva. Hingis simply had the best volleys and touch out there, only Navratilova can claim shes better at net, Novotna may give her a challenge as well and Zvereva wasnt at all shabby at the net. Even Raymond is a good net player but theres nothing she can do that Hingis couldnt do but a lot better, perhaps serve above 105mph, but even with a serve consistently under 100mph she won 40 titles singles, 5 slams singles,9slams doubles and 36 doubles titles with about 12 different players and won those doubles slams with 6 different partners. I mean one could make the case the Billie Jean King could volley better than Hingis, but who can claim their better than King at volleying other than Navratilova? Had Hingis grow up playing on grass one could only imagine she would be the finest volleyer ever! Her anticipation is the one thing that was unrivaled, i would presume even on the mens side it'd be doubtful if you found someone who could anticipate better than Hingis, she knew where her opponents would go 2 or 3 shots ahead. One other thing very few can rally better than Hingis, the shots she would come up with where just amazing, those soft lobs and exquisite drop shots what a beauty, ultimately it was that swiftness that made Hingis so good in both singles and doubles. If only she had dedicated more time to doubles, there would be no doubt she would have gone down as perhaps the finest doubles player who wasnt a doubles specialist, in fact i think this is precisely how she'l be remembered.

tennisIlove09
Feb 13th, 2004, 06:13 PM
John MacEnroe | Martina Navratilova | Pam Shriver

You can't say Martina without saying Pam.

BTW: don't make me choke on the air I breathe by saying Juju is the greatest singles player ever. :rolleyes:

alfajeffster
Feb 13th, 2004, 06:14 PM
Martina has won 9 mixed doubles without playing that many during her prime (and didn't have the chance to play mixed in Australia until 87 as it had been discontinued) Court almost invariably played singles doubles and mixed, so Martina's tally is not bad (with various partners too. Her absolute record of 31 Grand Slam women's doubles titles (2/3 with Shriver + others with King, Nagelsen, Temesvari, Evert, Mandlikova, Gigi Fernandez and Stove) demonstrates both her supremacy and her versatility.
You know she's way up there on my list. Check out my old thread "Martina the Magnificent" when you have a moment.

:wavey: AndyT

DA FOREHAND
Feb 13th, 2004, 06:21 PM
It all depends on your criteria. I'd agree with Tony P that in terms of ability Hingis is second only to Martina Navratilova. However, in terms of results, you have to put Gigi and Natasha (:kiss: God, she was amazing to watch... sorry, getting carried away...) ahead of her.


There are legions of people who think Patty S. is one of the most talented players around, unfortunately that hasn't translated into results. When you're speaking best ever results are what matter most.

Based on results Hingis would be placed outside the top five in doubles.

Martina N.
Pam Shriver
M.Court
Gigi F.
L. Raymond
R. Stubbs
Natasha Z.

that's just the short list.

Results speak for themselves, and I guess when you don't have those in your favor the most you can hope for is your deluded fans.

bandabou
Feb 13th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Martina N is the greatest, obviously.....but Martina H is in the top 5. 9 doubles GS titles with 6!!! different partners?! Impressive...

DA FOREHAND
Feb 13th, 2004, 06:40 PM
Opps I forgot BJK

Hingis bumped down another notch.

Lucy
Feb 13th, 2004, 06:49 PM
I would have to say Martina Hingis because she won tournaments with anyone she partners up with. I think that's pretty cool.:cool:

DA FOREHAND
Feb 13th, 2004, 07:41 PM
I would have to say Martina Hingis because she won tournaments with anyone she partners up with. I think that's pretty cool.:cool:


You're right, she's the only player in history to ever do that!:tape::rolleyes:

tennisvideos
Feb 13th, 2004, 11:55 PM
"I am surprised with how many different partners Margaret Court won her 19 GS doubles with - Mary Reitano, Robyn Ebbern, Lesley Turner, Maria Bueno, Judy Tegart, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade"

How bout we just give Martina best doubles player of her generation.

There is no doubt Navratilova was the best doubles player of her generation, and it is possible that she was the greatest doubles play of all time. But once again, too may variables for me to say that. I would prefer to list her along with the other great doubles players .. and there are many who have littered our sport through the ages.

I think the depth of doubles may have peaked in the golden age of the 60s and 70s. There were so many astonishing pairings/combinations that played just about everywhere:
60s:
Bueno with any of these Hard/Richey/King/Court
King with Susman/Bueno/Casals
Court with Turner/Lehane/Reitano/Ebbern/Bueno/Tegart
Sandra Reynolds/Renee Shuurman
Anne Jones with Frankie Durr/Ginny Wade
Frankie Durr with Gail Chanfreau/Jones
Richey/Graebner

70s:
King with Casals/Navratilova/Stove
Navratilova with Evert/King
Durr with Stove/Wade
Court with Goolagong/Wade
Morozova/Wade
Turnbull with Reid/Casals/Stove
Gourley/Russell or with Krantzke

From the late 70s onwards many of the leading women didn't bother to play much doubles which was a shame. Players like Evert, Austin, Jaeger, Graf, Sabatini, Seles, Capriati etc and when they did play doubles, they were never much of a force on the doubles court. Why? They were predominantly baseliners. Not saying they weren't any good at doubles, but they weren't up there with the best around. Perhaps they couldn't be bother committing to the art and wanted to focus on their singles. Sanchez was a great baseliner who translated across as a great doubles player... so it could be done. Others proved it in the past as well ... Connolly, Durr, Richey to name a few. But it was a crying shame that the trend for the top singles players not competing in doubles started in the late 70s, esp as I love watching doubles. And that trend has continued today unfortunately.

I think money has had a lot to do with it. Back before the advent of professional tennis, most of the competitors played purely for the love of the game. Money rarely entered the equation. Because they loved the game so much, they seemed more willing to commit, not only to womens doubles but also mixed doubles at the same tournaments. It wasn't uncommon at some tournaments for some of the players to play 3 or 4 matches a day - and this near the end of some of the Grand Slams! Ah... the good old days. LOL.

TonyP
Feb 14th, 2004, 12:27 AM
Personally, I don't see where Stubbs and Raymond fit into the mix. Their accomplishments in doubles do not exceed Novotna or ASV. I think both Raymond and Stubbs have three women's doubles titles each. Novotna has 12, ASV six.

Stubbs has a lot of titles, over 40, but she has played since 1988, during which time she never won a singles title. At any rate, three slam doubles titles do not make you one of the greats of the sport.

The two Martinas are the only women in tennis history to have won a calendar year grand slam and were simulataneously ranked number one in the world in both singles and doubles. Add in Hingis total of 9 slams with six different partners and her 36 doubles titles and the debate should be over.

arcus
Feb 14th, 2004, 12:52 AM
I'm quite sure Venus and Serena's winning percentage is greater than Hingis'

Pam Shriver?
Gigi/and Natasha
BJK
MCourt

All have more doubles titles than Hingis.


Martina Navratilova, in pretty much everyones book, the greatest doubles player of all time, stated in an interview that one of the big regrets of her career was not having the chance to play doubles with hingis, cos she thought she was just so good. That says a lot.

disposablehero
Feb 14th, 2004, 01:27 AM
Martina Navratilova!!!Navratilova, Court, or Lenglen. The best Doubles players are great Singles players.

Andy T
Feb 14th, 2004, 07:26 AM
Grand Slam Events Doubles Stats from 1960 on: wins-finals-semis-quarters-total.
1) NAVRATILOVA: 31- 6- 12- 10= 59
2) SHRIVER: 21- 6- 11- 6= 44
3) SMITH-COURT: 19- 14- 3- 5= 41
4) ZVEREVA: 18- 13- 8- 5= 44
5) G. FERNANDEZ: 17- 6- 5- 8= 36
6) KING: 16- 13- 8- 10= 47
7) NOVOTNA: 12- 11- 6- 7= 36
8) CASALS: 10- 12- 9- 13= 44
9) BUENO*: 10- 3- 5- 0= 18
10) SUKOVA: 9- 5- 14- 9= 37

*Additionally, Bueno won Wimbledon 58, was finalist at US in 58 and 59 and QF in Paris 59.


Total Career GS Doubles Wins/Totals % of some of the great singles players:

Navratilova (1973-95) 31/62 = 0.50
Bueno 11/25 = 0.44
Court 19/44 = 0.431818
Navratilova (1973-2004) 31/76 = 40.7894
King 16/54 = 0.296296
Goolagong 5/25 = 0.2 *
Evert 3/39 = 0.076923

* excludes 1977 Dec Australian Open Doubles - final not played

Andy T
Feb 14th, 2004, 07:41 AM
Personally, I don't see where Stubbs and Raymond fit into the mix. Their accomplishments in doubles do not exceed Novotna or ASV. I think both Raymond and Stubbs have three women's doubles titles each. Novotna has 12, ASV six.

Stubbs has a lot of titles, over 40, but she has played since 1988, during which time she never won a singles title. At any rate, three slam doubles titles do not make you one of the greats of the sport.

The two Martinas are the only women in tennis history to have won a calendar year grand slam and were simulataneously ranked number one in the world in both singles and doubles. Add in Hingis total of 9 slams with six different partners and her 36 doubles titles and the debate should be over.

Maria Bueno was the first woman to achieve a calendar year doubles Grand slam in 1960, with Truman in Australia and Hard at the other three slams. From 1958 (her first doubles event in the slams) to 1963, she competed in womens doubles at the Grand Slams 11 times and reached the final 11 times, winning 7 titles. having failed to reach the finals of any of the three events she played in 64, she then embarked on another hot period from 1965 to her first retirement in 69: Played 9, won 4, finalist once.Thus from 58-68 her record is played 23, won 11 (including a slam), finalist 5, semi finalist 4 (=20/23) Not bad at all.

bandabou
Feb 14th, 2004, 10:18 AM
Yeah, Raymond and Stubbs...are not even good, considering they were mostly doubles specialists. three doubles-titles?! Weak,weak...

tennisvideos
Feb 14th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Grand Slam Events Doubles Stats from 1960 on: wins-finals-semis-quarters-total.
1) NAVRATILOVA: 31- 6- 12- 10= 59
2) SHRIVER: 21- 6- 11- 6= 44
3) SMITH-COURT: 19- 14- 3- 5= 41
4) ZVEREVA: 18- 13- 8- 5= 44
5) G. FERNANDEZ: 17- 6- 5- 8= 36
6) KING: 16- 13- 8- 10= 47
7) NOVOTNA: 12- 11- 6- 7= 36
8) CASALS: 10- 12- 9- 13= 44
9) BUENO*: 10- 3- 5- 0= 18
10) SUKOVA: 9- 5- 14- 9= 37

*Additionally, Bueno won Wimbledon 58, was finalist at US in 58 and 59 and QF in Paris 59.

Hi Andy

I like the Stats on the winner and finals better..... would like to see them in terms of Percentages from the number of tournaments played. Are you able to do this?

Navratilova's stats must have been awesome ... but looks like Maria Bueno had great stats as well .... something I wasn't expecting even though I knew she won plenty of titles with Hard, Richey, King, Court etc. I think you should include Maria's figures from 58 onwards as she did well from then. :)

Andy T
Feb 14th, 2004, 01:44 PM
Hi Andy

I like the Stats on the winner and finals better..... would like to see them in terms of Percentages from the number of tournaments played. Are you able to do this?

Navratilova's stats must have been awesome ... but looks like Maria Bueno had great stats as well .... something I wasn't expecting even though I knew she won plenty of titles with Hard, Richey, King, Court etc. I think you should include Maria's figures from 58 onwards as she did well from then. :)

Hi Craig
:wavey:
I added in the win/total stats for Bueno, Court, King and Navratilova (plus Evert and Goolagong) but can't for the others. Maybe someone slese could check them out. Navratilova is a case because her comeback brings down her percentage drastically.

tennisvideos
Feb 15th, 2004, 01:16 AM
Thanks AndyT! :)

You could easily write off Navratilova's comeback stats in her 40s to be fair on her.

Great figures for Navratilova and then Bueno & Court similar.

disposablehero
Feb 15th, 2004, 01:35 AM
Thanks AndyT! :)

You could easily write off Navratilova's comeback stats in her 40s to be fair on her.

Great figures for Navratilova and then Bueno & Court similar.
Let's not forget Suzanne. From the time she was 15, she and Bunny Ryan lost only 1 set in 7 years.

tennisvideos
Feb 15th, 2004, 06:42 AM
Let's not forget Suzanne. From the time she was 15, she and Bunny Ryan lost only 1 set in 7 years.

Of course we haven't forgotten the immortal Suzanne Lenglen ... I mentioned her and all the other great doubles players in my earlier post eg. Lenglen, Ryan, Brough, Dupont etc....

I just think Andy T was utilising accessible stats, and unfortunately I am not too sure posters here have much data at their disposal prior to 1960.

But don't worry, those legends are never forgotten. And based on that record you mention, Lenglen/Ryan must definately be one of the greatest pairs ever :)

Circe
Feb 15th, 2004, 06:21 PM
I honestly think that to bring pre-Open era players into a discussion of this sort is not very fair, because the game as played those days is radically different from how it has been played in more recent times.

Better to restrict the comparism to the open era, in which case Navratilova is right at the top by any estimation, and Hingis' claims to the second spot are, I think, very strong.

Rollo
Feb 15th, 2004, 06:33 PM
Why not bring in women before 1968? The year marked no radical change in the way tennis was played. It was the advent of larger metal racquets in the 80s that changed the game. If there is a cut-off point it would be about 20 years ago.

DA FOREHAND
Feb 21st, 2004, 02:28 PM
"1) NAVRATILOVA: 31- 6- 12- 10= 59
2) SHRIVER: 21- 6- 11- 6= 44
3) SMITH-COURT: 19- 14- 3- 5= 41
4) ZVEREVA: 18- 13- 8- 5= 44
5) G. FERNANDEZ: 17- 6- 5- 8= 36
6) KING: 16- 13- 8- 10= 47
7) NOVOTNA: 12- 11- 6- 7= 36
8) CASALS: 10- 12- 9- 13= 44
9) BUENO*: 10- 3- 5- 0= 18
10) SUKOVA: 9- 5- 14- 9= 37 "

Opps Martina Hingis' record pales in comparison....Nine slam titles does put her in the top ten though.