Venus still most successful Slam player of the 2000s

After Wimbledon I made a thread showing that Venus had overtaken Serena again in the 2000s, and now that I've finally updated my spreadsheet with the US Open results I can bore/excite you again with lots of lists.

The point system I use is: 1R - 1p, 2R - 2p, 3R - 4p, 4R - 8p, QF - 16p, SF - 32p, RU - 64p, WON - 128p

Top 10 of the 2000s

1. Venus Williams - 1091
2. Serena Williams - 1076
3. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 775
4. Jennifer Capriati - 698
5. Lindsay Davenport - 681
6. Kim Clijsters - 556
7. Mary Pierce - 349
8. Martina Hingis - 345
9. Amelie Mauresmo - 308
10. Elena Dementieva - 287

Divided by amount of Grand Slams played

1. Serena Williams - 56.6
2. Venus Williams - 49.6
3. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 36.9
4. Jennifer Capriati - 36.7
5. Martina Hingis - 34.5
6. Lindsay Davenport - 34.1
7. Kim Clijsters - 27.8
8. Maria Sharapova - 23
9. Mary Pierce - 17.5
10. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 15

---

Entire Open Era

1. Chris Evert - 3944
2. Martina Navratilova - 3785
3. Steffi Graf - 3721
4. Monica Seles - 1817
5. Evonne Goolagong - 1810
6. Billie Jean King - 1755
7. Margaret Court - 1732
8. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario - 1643
9. Martina Hingis - 1381
10. Venus Williams - 1310
11. Lindsay Davenport - 1275
12. Serena Williams - 1230
13. Hana Mandlikova - 1197
14. Gabriela Sabatini - 973
15. Jennifer Capriati - 946
16. Conchita Martinez - 883
17. Virginia Wade - 867
18. Mary Pierce - 816
19. Jana Novotna - 807
20. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 778
21. Helena Sukova - 690
22. Mary Joe Fernandez - 661
23. Kerry Reid - 653
24. Pam Shriver - 584
25. Kim Clijsters - 568

Divided by amount of Grand Slams played

1. Margaret Court - 78.7
2. Chris Evert - 70.4
3. Steffi Graf - 68.9
4. Martina Navratilova - 56.5
5. Evonne Goolagong - 54.8
6. Billie Jean King - 53.2
7. Serena Williams - 47.3
8. Martina Hingis - 46
9. Monica Seles - 45.4
10. Venus Williams - 39.7

---

Anyway, hope you find this interesting, let me know if you want to see the results for another time period or perhaps with a different point system.

hmm very interesting

interesting tt jennifer has done so well! wow...

but how come serena had 56.6 then fell to 47.3 in e 2 lists? shouldn't it be e same?
ditto for venus

Look at your list for the entire open era.
It is obvious that your point system is a failure in ranking the players.
Get another system.
However a real system may not give you the results you want.

The most successful slam player of any period is the player with the most slam titles in that period. In the event of a tie you can look at number of finals etc etc. The most successful slam player of the 2000s is undoubtedly Serena at the moment.

The most successful slam player of any period is the player with the most slam titles in that period.
absolutely.
one slam title is worth much more than two finals!

hmm very interesting

Indeed.

interesting tt jennifer has done so well! wow...

but how come serena had 56.6 then fell to 47.3 in e 2 lists? shouldn't it be e same?
ditto for venus

the first one is made counting from 2000 onwards. the other one is counting all of their grnad slam appearances. correct?

Look at your list for the entire open era.
It is obvious that your point system is a failure in ranking the players.
Get another system.
However a real system may not give you the results you want.

Moreover, the Slams didn't have complete 128 draws until what the the early 90s?

It's yet another poster with too much time on their hands; but hey, what the heck, it's a different perspective right?

It's one of these "look! look! i found another way of adding up numbers so that they show my fave player as the best!" thread. :yawn: :yawn:

Nice for Vee...but 6 slams is still 6 slams and that is > 5 slams!

Hasnt Venus played more slams post 2000 anyway?

So the only fair results are the ones in which you divided by the number of slams played, in which Serena is on top. :)

Nice try, though.

Venus is the best of her era, no matter what the stats say!
And she'll be back. . .

It's one of these "look! look! i found another way of adding up numbers so that they show my fave player as the best!" thread. :yawn: :yawn:



Or one of those my favorite player isn't on top so I'm going to bitch and moan about the stats :)

It's one of these "look! look! i found another way of adding up numbers so that they show my fave player as the best!" thread. :yawn: :yawn:
Well the Williams sisters aren't my favorites at all, but I can't deny their accomplishments.

Look at your list for the entire open era.
It is obvious that your point system is a failure in ranking the players.
Get another system.
However a real system may not give you the results you want.
Well, the list for the entire open era is definitely skewed in favor of those players who played more and those who could dominate in their time. It just shows it's not possible to adequately compare players of this generation to the one before it. But I still think the list is interesting.

Moreover, the Slams didn't have complete 128 draws until what the the early 90s?
I think most Grand Slams had at least 64 players, even in the 70s, so they shouldn't be seen as lesser accomplishments than a Grand Slam today.