PDA

View Full Version : Who drops out of top 10 all time when new member of top 10 all time emergs


forehand27
Nov 16th, 2012, 08:32 PM
Right now the general consensus is the top 5 women players of all time in some order are Graf, Serena, Navratilova, Court, and Evert (actually probably that exact order, with the possability of switching Graf and Serena especialy in the future, and possability of switching Court and Evert). The bottom 5 of the top 10 in no particular order are generally regarded as Wills Moody, Lenglen, Connolly, Seles, and King. When someone emerges who wins double digit slams and has to be included as a top 10 player all time, or for those supporters or strong believers of Henin or Venus who feel they belong in the top 10 all time above one of those, who will be the next to drop out of the unoffical top 10 all time to make room for the next inclusion. My pick would have to be Seles or King. I cant think who else it might be. Wills has too much in the way of numbers, Lenglen has too much in the way of domination, and Connolly has too much in the way of teenage complete dominance and peak level play for her time.

forehand27
Nov 16th, 2012, 08:46 PM
I voted King. I suspect most will vote Seles, but King is the only one in the top 10 who doesnt even have a slight GOAT claim of any kind, even though she is undisputable an all time great who could even be argued as high as 5th or 6th over some of those who arguably do have outside GOAT arguments, depending on ones critiera, and even though King is probably the most important person in tennis history counting all contributions, on and off court altogether. Atleast Seles fanatics can argue the stabbing and a multitude of what ifs to desperately try and spin her as the possible GOAT (with blusters of laughter from 95% of people but they can still try), while King as great a player as she is has nothing as far as a THE GOAT argument of any kind.

bobito
Nov 16th, 2012, 09:54 PM
Right now the general consensus is the top 5 women players of all time in some order are Graf, Serena, Navratilova, Court, and Evert (actually probably that exact order, with the possability of switching Graf and Serena especialy in the future, and possability of switching Court and Evert). The bottom 5 of the top 10 in no particular order are generally regarded as Wills Moody, Lenglen, Connolly, Seles, and King. When someone emerges who wins double digit slams and has to be included as a top 10 player all time, or for those supporters or strong believers of Henin or Venus who feel they belong in the top 10 all time above one of those, who will be the next to drop out of the unoffical top 10 all time to make room for the next inclusion. My pick would have to be Seles or King. I cant think who else it might be. Wills has too much in the way of numbers, Lenglen has too much in the way of domination, and Connolly has too much in the way of teenage complete dominance and peak level play for her time.

Then the general consensus is wrong, probably because people have seen the 5 you name on TV. Until someone wins 10 slams in a row, Connolly is a genuine GOAT contender.

NashaMasha
Nov 16th, 2012, 10:11 PM
TennisChannel ranking

1)Steffi Graf
2)Martina Navratilova
3)Margaret Court
4)Chris Evert
5)Billie Jean King
6)Serena Williams (after +2 Slams she is definitely ahead of BJK)
7)Monica Seles
8)Venus Williams
9)Suzanne Lenglen
10)Justine Henin

Tennischannel is underrating results from the remote past because of the weak competition in the tour that time . But for sure player with 9 Slams and CGS will surpass Seles in any possible ranking

bobito
Nov 16th, 2012, 10:45 PM
TennisChannel ranking

1)Steffi Graf
2)Martina Navratilova
3)Margaret Court
4)Chris Evert
5)Billie Jean King
6)Serena Williams (after +2 Slams she is definitely ahead of BJK)
7)Monica Seles
8)Venus Williams
9)Suzanne Lenglen
10)Justine Henin

Tennischannel is underrating results from the remote past because of the weak competition in the tour that time . But for sure player with 9 Slams and CGS will surpass Seles in any possible ranking

These rankings are laughable. Lenglen makes it but 19 slam winner Wills Moody doesn't? And Evert, King, Seles, V Williams, Lenglen and Henin but not Connolly? Utter nonsense. Lenglen probably made it ahead of Connolly and Wills because she's got a court named after her, hence people are more familiar with the name. The others only because people saw them play on TV. Rankings like these are more about how well players are known today than how good they were as players.

I am old enough to remember when Evert and Navratilova were in their prime and most commentators then still regarded Connolly as incomparible. Of course those commentators had actually seen Little Mo play. Here's what tennis writer and Hall of Famer Lance Tingay wrote (and he saw all of them up to and including Graf):

"Whenever a great player comes along you have to ask, 'Could she have beaten Maureen?' In every case the answer is, I think not."

alfonsojose
Nov 16th, 2012, 10:49 PM
Where is Sharapova :awww: ?

NashaMasha
Nov 16th, 2012, 11:19 PM
These rankings are laughable. Lenglen makes it but 19 slam winner Wills Moody doesn't? And Evert, King, Seles, V Williams, Lenglen and Henin but not Connolly? Utter nonsense. Lenglen probably made it ahead of Connolly and Wills because she's got a court named after her, hence people are more familiar with the name. The others only because people saw them play on TV. Rankings like these are more about how well players are known today than how good they were as players.

I am old enough to remember when Evert and Navratilova were in their prime and most commentators then still regarded Connolly as incomparible. Of course those commentators had actually seen Little Mo play. Here's what tennis writer and Hall of Famer Lance Tingay wrote (and he saw all of them up to and including Graf):

"Whenever a great player comes along you have to ask, 'Could she have beaten Maureen?' In every case the answer is, I think not."

General Public and tennis journalists are still aware of Lenglen and not aware of Connoly.... That's the case

The main problem is that all ratings can be called laughable, because all of them are too subjective, including yours and any of mine and any of Steve Flink....

The only way to make it a bit more look objective is to count Majors,also taking into consideration Grand Slams and Career Grand Slams, because it's what was constant since 1922 ( it became really international a bit later though)
Players even during the time when Australian Open was with a weak draw sill were aware of it's Slam status,and who wanted to complete their career with all Majors travelled accross the ocean . Who didn't - their fault .
So
1)Court
2)Graf
3)Wills Moody
4)Navratilova
5)Evert
6)Serena Williams
7)BJK
8)Connoly
9)Seles
10)Lenglen

bobito
Nov 16th, 2012, 11:35 PM
General Public and tennis journalists are still aware of Lenglen and not aware of Connoly.... That's the case

The main problem is that all ratings can be called laughable, because all of them are too subjective, including yours and any of mine and any of Steve Flink....

The only way to make it a bit more look objective is to count Majors,also taking into consideration Grand Slams and Career Grand Slams, because it's what was constant since 1922 ( it became really international a bit later though)
Players even during the time when Australian Open was with a weak draw sill were aware of it's Slam status,and who wanted to complete their career with all Majors travelled accross the ocean . Who didn't - their fault .
So
1)Court
2)Graf
3)Wills Moody
4)Navratilova
5)Evert
6)Serena Williams
7)BJK
8)Connoly
9)Seles
10)Lenglen

Fair point. It's worth taking into consideration however that, almost certainly, the only thing that stopped Little Mo from being at the top of that list, probably by a sizable margin, was having her leg crushed under a horse at the age of 19.

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 05:48 AM
I agree Connolly would be the hands down runaway GOAT without her accident, but such is tragic reality, and her life in more than one way is a tragic reality with her early passing. If we are too limit the what ifs to give Seles, which was an even worse incident, then unfortunately we cant give those for Connolly either. I still rate Connolly over Seles since she was more dominant than Seles at the same ages vs a deeper field, and both are a similar what if case.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 17th, 2012, 11:07 AM
General Public and tennis journalists are still aware of Lenglen and not aware of Connoly.... That's the case

The main problem is that all ratings can be called laughable, because all of them are too subjective, including yours and any of mine and any of Steve Flink....

The only way to make it a bit more look objective is to count Majors,also taking into consideration Grand Slams and Career Grand Slams, because it's what was constant since 1922 ( it became really international a bit later though)
Players even during the time when Australian Open was with a weak draw sill were aware of it's Slam status,and who wanted to complete their career with all Majors travelled accross the ocean . Who didn't - their fault .
So
1)Court
2)Graf
3)Wills Moody
4)Navratilova
5)Evert
6)Serena Williams
7)BJK
8)Connoly
9)Seles
10)Lenglen
-Well, I know that everyone on TF gets an orgasm whenever they hear the word slam and just shrug their shoulders at whatever else someone might have done during their careers, but I don't think that's entirely fair. It's an impossible question to answer anyway since there are too many variables and ifs and buts involved.

-One of the biggest mistakes people make is to value a players' achievements based on what is considered the most important today as opposed to what was considered the most important at the time those players were competing. For example - today each of the four majors has more or less the same prestige. But before the 1980's there was a clear ranking order between them. Wimbledon came first, closely followed by the USO. Than there was a gap and the FO came in third. Than there was an another gap between the FO and the AO. In the 1970's many players considered the YEC the third most prestigious title out there.

-That makes it hard to assess the value of the slam wins of the oldies as compared to those of contemporary and more recent players. There are many oldies who never bothered to play the AO and missed out on some FO's that otherwise they might have won. In other words, players from the 1980's onwards had four attempts a year at winning a slam while many of those that came before that only had three or even just two attempts. One could say, "well, tough luck, they should have known better." But they played a schedule according to what made sense back then, just like players today do according to what makes sense to them now. What if for the sake of argument, say, Beijing in decades to come will grow into one of the most prestigious events on the calender and fifty years from now fans will look at the trophee and see that player X's name isn't on there? Would it be fair if they said, "well, tough luck. She should have known better and made winning that one a top priority."

-History often intervened as well. Two world wars inevitably took away from what some great players could otherwise have achieved. The pre-open "only amateurs allowed to compete" nonsense had less of an impact on the womens side of the game than the mens where you may just as well throw huge chunks of recorded history in the garbage can since many of the best only played the exibition circuit. Even so, there have been careers on the womens side that were affected by this as well, although not to a degree where one could argue that their recorded history of pre-open tennis is entirely false.

-It's hard to assess the achievements of players from the past in terms of how strong the opposition was compared with today, and the further back you go the harder it gets. It's probably safe to say that the 10 best players of Lenglen's or Will's era were not as strong as the opposition that later greats had to face. On the other hand, that's not their fault and they were so much better than everyone else and so dominant that there's reason to believe that they would have been great in later times as well.

-Today fans speak with contempt about players who reach #1 on the ranking list. In fact, if you make it there you automatically become an object for ridicule. Players themselves often shrug their shoulders at it as well. This was unthinkable before the 2000's when reaching #1 was one of the main goals of those who could possibly get there.

-And is it really fair to virtually ignore everything a player has achieved away from the slams, even today when many argue that slams are everything and nothing else matters? I don't think so. If someone whould for example win Indian Wells and Miami back to back it would be as big (arguably even a bigger) achievement as winning a slam, although because of everyone's slam obsession few would recognize it as such.

-I think that the majors are the four most important things to consider to decide on a players' greatness, but not to the exclusion of everything else. It's convenient to do so however since it takes a minimum of effort to find a list of how many slams each player won and then to decide, "there you have it! The ranking list of the all time greats!" I don't think it's that simple, although I won't deny that number of slams won is a huge factor in the debate.

pattyclijsters
Nov 17th, 2012, 11:54 AM
-Well, I know that everyone on TF gets an orgasm whenever they hear the word slam and just shrug their shoulders at whatever else someone might have done during their careers, but I don't think that's entirely fair. It's an impossible question to answer anyway since there are too many variables and ifs and buts involved.

-One of the biggest mistakes people make is to value a players' achievements based on what is considered the most important today as opposed to what was considered the most important at the time those players were competing. For example - today each of the four majors has more or less the same prestige. But before the 1980's there was a clear ranking order between them. Wimbledon came first, closely followed by the USO. Than there was a gap and the FO came in third. Than there was an another gap between the FO and the AO. In the 1970's many players considered the YEC the third most prestigious title out there.

-That makes it hard to assess the value of the slam wins of the oldies as compared to those of contemporary and more recent players. There are many oldies who never bothered to play the AO and missed out on some FO's that otherwise they might have won. In other words, players from the 1980's onwards had four attempts a year at winning a slam while many of those that came before that only had three or even just two attempts. One could say, "well, tough luck, they should have known better." But they played a schedule according to what made sense back then, just like players today do according to what makes sense to them now. What if for the sake of argument, say, Beijing in decades to come will grow into one of the most prestigious events on the calender and fifty years from now fans will look at the trophee and see that player X's name isn't on there? Would it be fair if they said, "well, tough luck. She should have known better and made winning that one a top priority."

-History often intervened as well. Two world wars inevitably took away from what some great players could otherwise have achieved. The pre-open "only amateurs allowed to compete" nonsense had less of an impact on the womens side of the game than the mens where you may just as well throw huge chunks of recorded history in the garbage can since many of the best only played the exibition circuit. Even so, there have been careers on the womens side that were affected by this as well, although not to a degree where one could argue that their recorded history of pre-open tennis is entirely false.

-It's hard to assess the achievements of players from the past in terms of how strong the opposition was compared with today, and the further back you go the harder it gets. It's probably safe to say that the 10 best players of Lenglen's or Will's era were not as strong as the opposition that later greats had to face. On the other hand, that's not their fault and they were so much better than everyone else and so dominant that there's reason to believe that they would have been great in later times as well.

-Today fans speak with contempt about players who reach #1 on the ranking list. In fact, if you make it there you automatically become an object for ridicule. Players themselves often shrug their shoulders at it as well. This was unthinkable before the 2000's when reaching #1 was one of the main goals of those who could possibly get there.

-And is it really fair to virtually ignore everything a player has achieved away from the slams, even today when many argue that slams are everything and nothing else matters? I don't think so. If someone whould for example win Indian Wells and Miami back to back it would be as big (arguably even a bigger) achievement as winning a slam, although because of everyone's slam obsession few would recognize it as such.

-I think that the majors are the four most important things to consider to decide on a players' greatness, but not to the exclusion of everything else. It's convenient to do so however since it takes a minimum of effort to find a list of how many slams each player won and then to decide, "there you have it! The ranking list of the all time greats!" I don't think it's that simple, although I won't deny that number of slams won is a huge factor in the debate.

:hearts: :worship: :worship:

NashaMasha
Nov 17th, 2012, 03:40 PM
-One of the biggest mistakes people make is to value a players' achievements based on what is considered the most important today as opposed to what was considered the most important at the time those players were competing. For example - today each of the four majors has more or less the same prestige. But before the 1980's there was a clear ranking order between them. Wimbledon came first, closely followed by the USO. Than there was a gap and the FO came in third. Than there was an another gap between the FO and the AO. In the 1970's many players considered the YEC the third most prestigious title out there.

Chris Evert considers Slams more important than YEC , despite in 70s YEC were much more profitable and prestigious than some Slams.... Replying on the question "Will Serena surpass you?" she answered "Yes, if she wins more Slams than me" I don't remember the exact quote, but it's what she meant


-Today fans speak with contempt about players who reach #1 on the ranking list. In fact, if you make it there you automatically become an object for ridicule. Players themselves often shrug their shoulders at it as well. This was unthinkable before the 2000's when reaching #1 was one of the main goals of those who could possibly get there.

reaching #1 position is not a great achievement as Winning a Major is, it's something like being a world-leader before Olympics in other sports, but if you fails to win it , all the hype disappears immediately and this #1 position is becoming a reason for critical articles. There is nothing worse than being a world-leader (with best result in the season) and return back from Olympics without medals
same in tennis. The only difference is that there are much more chances to win "world championships" in tennis than in track-and -field, because of 4 Majros per year..... Players ranked #1 who failed to win a Slam shouldn't blame luck , as they were playing unique sport , which gives much more opportunities to get at the top than for instance skiing etc

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:12 PM
Wow only 1 vote for King? I am surprised at that. For me she is only #9 or #10 all time now so the logical choice to drop out.

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:15 PM
Comparing King to Seles, they are close. King has 3 more slams and King was the dominant player of 67, 68, 72 and Seles only of 91, 92. King was also the #1 player of 66, 71, and maybe 74. Seles again only of 91 and 92. So come to think of it more King probably does have the edge.

However without the stabbing Seles would probably have about 12 slams and tie King. King though likely missed out on a few Australian Opens by not playing it more, so would then again still be about 3 ahead. King though was lucky to play in an era 3 of the 4 majors were on her best surface- grass. It would be like Seles not only not being stabbed but having 3 of the 4 majors be on rebound ace or clay, whichever one thinks is her best surface. King also benefited from periods Court either wasnt playing or just coming off a layoff. She never dominated in the presence of a strong and full time Court.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:19 PM
Chris Evert considers Slams more important than YEC , despite in 70s YEC were much more profitable and prestigious than some Slams.... Replying on the question "Will Serena surpass you?" she answered "Yes, if she wins more Slams than me" I don't remember the exact quote, but it's what she meant
Chris Evert also said that if she knew back then that the FO would become as prestigious a title as Wimbledon and the USO that she would have competed at the three she missed in the 1970's instead of playing WTT. And I'm sure she feels the same way about the AO's she didn't play in the 70's as well. Personally I don't see it in terms of if Serena "only" wins 17 it's Evert >>> Serena and if she wins 19 it's Serena >>> Evert though. I see them more as members of a select tier one group of all time greats of which Evert of course is a member and one which Serena definitively joined in 2012. Probably sooner in fact, but this year she took away the last of whatever remaining doubts there may have been in the minds of some. But to rank Wills, Court, Graf, Serena and four or five others in any specific order is in my opinion impossible (but fun, I admit) because there are too many factors to consider. Most of the time it comes down to who you prefer and which statistics you choose to accentuate or ignore as a result.

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:23 PM
I agree Evert should be the one who really holds the slam record. Had everyone played all 4 slams in the 60s 70s she would be sitting on about 25 slams, and Court would be down below 20 probably. However even if Evert held the slam record I dont think her all time ranking to people would be any different than now. I think the reason she is not viewed as GOAT is people saw her at or close to her best so completely owned and dominated by Navratilova, to an extreme no other GOAT candidate has ever been dominated for multiple years. 13 losses in a row, 4 slam final losses in a row, a slew of embarassing scorelines even on her own best and Martina's worst surface. Then while no longer in her prime for most of the matches, 8 losses in a row to Graf, winning only 1 set. Considering Navratilova was beating Graf and Seles into her mid to late 30s, King was beating or pushing Martina and Chris into her mid to late 30s, and Evert and Navratlova both lost at Wimbledon 77 to 32 year old Wade and even 32 year old Stove, the age alone cant justify Graf's total ownage of Evert. So people take note of that too. For the record I dont think Graf if she were still playing at 33 or 34 would have lost 8 times in a row to even peakRena of 2002-2003, and would have won more than 1 set. She is just too proud, and has too much weapons and athleticsm of her own to not do better than that, and I say that as someone who would give peakRena the overall edge over even peak Graf, or anyone for that matter. In the end I think the main reason most people rate Graf, Navratilova, Court, and now Serena over Evert is the perception all those women in their primes would regularly beat Evert at hers, and at their best simply played tennis at a higher and more dominant level. This perception probably being true.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:35 PM
reaching #1 position is not a great achievement as Winning a Major is, it's something like being a world-leader before Olympics in other sports, but if you fails to win it , all the hype disappears immediately and this #1 position is becoming a reason for critical articles. There is nothing worse than being a world-leader (with best result in the season) and return back from Olympics without medals
same in tennis. The only difference is that there are much more chances to win "world championships" in tennis than in track-and -field, because of 4 Majros per year..... Players ranked #1 who failed to win a Slam shouldn't blame luck , as they were playing unique sport , which gives much more opportunities to get at the top than for instance skiing etc
I didn't say that getting to #1 is as great an achievement as winning a slam. I didn't say that it isn't either. Sue Barker, Chris O'Neil and Barbara Jordan all won a slam, but I nevertheless consider Jankovic, Safina and Wozniacki getting to number one a greater achievement. But I think that everything a player has done in her career matters, including (and yes, most of all) how she did at slams, but also other tournaments, h2h's, winning percentage, peak performances as well as consistency - everything except for exibitions. It's all important, although I agree that some things are more important than others. But in truth - everyone who is under consideration for a top 10 all time ranking is bound to have done well in all those categories.

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:45 PM
I didn't say that getting to #1 is as great an achievement as winning a slam. I didn't say that it isn't either. Sue Barker, Chris O'Neil and Barbara Jordan all won a slam, but I nevertheless consider Jankovic, Safina and Wozniacki getting to number one a greater achievement. But I think that everything a player has done in her career matters, including (and yes, most of all) how she did at slams, but also other tournaments, h2h's, winning percentage, peak performances as well as consistency - everything except for exibitions. It's all important, although I agree that some things are more important than others. But in truth - everyone who is under consideration for a top 10 all time ranking is bound to have done well in all those categories.

The players that are currently in the top 10 have done best in all those categories too. What argument is there to make that say Venus or Henin deserve to be in the top 10 over say Seles.

Henin I guess has the edge of 3 year end #1s, and arguably 4 years as the games best player or true #1 (2003, 2004, 2006, 2007), and being better on grass than Seles by a wide margin. However it still isnt enough. Henin never had a 3 slam year, even in her most dominant year, Seles had 2 of them. Seles also has 2 more slams, and would probably have atleast 4 or 5 more without the stabbing. That plus a past her prime Seles leads Henin in head to head.

Venus has even less argument vs Seles or whoever you consider bottom of the top 10. 0 year end #1s, barely any weeks at #1, no titles and only 1 final at 2 of the 4 slams.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:56 PM
Wow only 1 vote for King? I am surprised at that. For me she is only #9 or #10 all time now so the logical choice to drop out.
Much as I feel that it's not an exact science I would tend to agree. It's probably between King and Seles. Seles perhaps got lucky in that in her era grass was no longer the dominant surface. But she got unlucky of course because of the stabbing. King could possibly have achieved even more than she did if she hadn't spend (but not wasted :)) so much time and effort on fighting the good fight for womens tennis. Both of them fully deserve their spot in the top 10, but if someone has to go it will probably be one of those two.

NashaMasha
Nov 17th, 2012, 08:22 PM
But I think that everything a player has done in her career matters, including (and yes, most of all) how she did at slams, but also other tournaments, h2h's, winning percentage, peak performances as well as consistency - everything except for exibitions. It's all important, although I agree that some things are more important than others. But in truth - everyone who is under consideration for a top 10 all time ranking is bound to have done well in all those categories.

it's true, but this comprehensive comparison is just impossible when we speak about Justine Henin and for instance Maureen Connolly.... it's possible when we compare players of 90s-10s only.

bobito
Nov 17th, 2012, 09:33 PM
How do you compare players from different eras? Not objectively obviously but which criteria you use will have a significant effect on the result you end up with.

How well they dominated their own era. By this yardstick Connolly wins hands down unless you include pre war players. In more recent times Graf would be the player who dominated the field most. This is the only measure you are using if you simply count the number of titles each player won, either in total or as a percentage of tournaments played.

How well they might have done in another era. This is highly subjective and involves a lot of guesswork but surely has to be considered when comparing players from different eras. For example of recent stars, Hingis and Henin immediately spring to mind as players who might have been outstanding in the days of wooden racquets while Seles and Sharapova would surely have struggled. Does that make Henin and Hingis better players than Seles and Sharapova? Hard to say. Looking at players of yesteryear, Connolly, at 5ft 4ins, would surely not have dominated in the modern game as she did in her own time, though Henin’s success suggests she might still have been very successful. On the other hand Court, taller, more powerful and with a big serve, might have been just as outstanding a player today.

Do doubles results count? Doubles has been devalued in recent years but, back in the day, it was considered far more important. Do Billie Jean King’s 16 doubles slams and 11 mixed titles make her a better player than Seles? Looked at from Seles’ perspective, when top singles players rarely played doubles, certainly not but, looked at from King’s era, absolutely.

Do you take into account “what if”s? This debate is full of them. What if Connolly hadn’t had a riding accident? What if Court had played against an international quality field in her 11 Aussie Open titles? What if Seles hadn’t been stabbed? All are entirely speculative factors but none of them irrelevant.

There is one other factor that involves four great players whose careers overlapped. How does changing racquet technology effect players who are around when the new equipment comes along? Composite racquets came into use in the mid 1980s when Evert and Navratilova were established players, Graf was a teenager who had recently turned pro and Seles was still learning the game. How much of an advantage did this give Steffi over Martina and Chrissie? Hard to say. Her technique would have already been established but she was younger and probably more adaptable when the new racquets came into use. Seles is a different matter. She was from the very first generation of players who learned to play with such equipment and her technique and playing style reflected that. Had Seles been born 5 years earlier she simply would not have been able to play the way she did, 5 years later and she’d have been up against other players who had learned to play with these racquets. In truth she came along at a very opportune time and made the most of it.

As others have said, how we weigh up all of these factors is highly subjective and no doubt biased by who we like and who we don’t. I like small players who have to use skill and guile to overcome bigger, more powerful opponents so I champion the cause of Little Mo. If I’m absolutely honest about it though, there are only two players of whom it can be said that they truly dominated their own era and would likely have been almost as good had they been born in another time. Margaret Court and Steffi Graf.

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 09:38 PM
Seles is a different matter. She was from the very first generation of players who learned to play with such equipment and her technique and playing style reflected that. Had Seles been born 5 years earlier she simply would not have been able to play the way she did, 5 years later and she’d have been up against other players who had learned to play with these racquets. In truth she came along at a very opportune time and made the most of it.


That is a good point on Seles and it might be why her dominance was so short lived as others emerged who had grown up playing with those same new racquets just like her, and suddenly she wasnt able to stand out from the pack anymore.

Some say Seles is the unluckiest player because of the stabbing, but in many respects she was quite fortunate in ways others in this thread have enlightened me too I didnt think before. Another huge one was as another poster said she wasnt born in an era 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass, as it was most of tennis history. She wouldnt have ever been winning 3 slams a year, dominating the game, and probably never reached #1 if that were the case. The one good news for her is she never would have been important enough to be stabbed by some sicko if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, especialy impeding enough on Grafs success for that to happen.

Stonerpova
Nov 17th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Seles is a different matter. She was from the very first generation of players who learned to play with such equipment and her technique and playing style reflected that. Had Seles been born 5 years earlier she simply would not have been able to play the way she did, 5 years later and she’d have been up against other players who had learned to play with these racquets. In truth she came along at a very opportune time and made the most of it.


That is a good point on Seles and it might be why her dominance was so short lived as others emerged who had grown up playing with those same new racquets just like her, and suddenly she wasnt able to stand out from the pack anymore.

I CANNOT.

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 09:43 PM
I CANNOT.

Well say whatever you want but in the last 7 half years of her career she won 0 slams, aged 22 to 29. To put that down solely to the stabbing and nothing else is somewhat delusional at best. No doubt the terrible stabbing was one of various factors for her and one of various factors of her lack of post stabbing success, but nobody when she came storming back and won her 2nd slam back predicted 0 more slams. However what soon happened is suddenly a ton of women emerged who could serve harder, hit the ball harder, take the ball on the rise, early, and time it with angles and geometrical dimensions similar to her own, and on top of that moved much better than even pre stabbing Seles (the latter always existed though, but she hit the ball so much better than all others that didnt matter much at one point). It is feasible to believe others emerging who had grown up with the same updated equipment was a large factor in that. On another note the unluckiest thing for Monica is 1993-1995 would have been her biggest years to shine outside of 1991-1992, and that is the period she mostly missed altogether. In hindsight the new era of upgraded big babe tennis was never going to be her time to shine, and alas it defintiely wasnt.

iWill
Jun 17th, 2013, 07:30 PM
Some good points made in this thread.

TennisPhan
Jun 17th, 2013, 07:51 PM
These rankings are laughable. Lenglen makes it but 19 slam winner Wills Moody doesn't? And Evert, King, Seles, V Williams, Lenglen and Henin but not Connolly? Utter nonsense. Lenglen probably made it ahead of Connolly and Wills because she's got a court named after her, hence people are more familiar with the name. The others only because people saw them play on TV. Rankings like these are more about how well players are known today than how good they were as players.

I am old enough to remember when Evert and Navratilova were in their prime and most commentators then still regarded Connolly as incomparible. Of course those commentators had actually seen Little Mo play. Here's what tennis writer and Hall of Famer Lance Tingay wrote (and he saw all of them up to and including Graf):

"Whenever a great player comes along you have to ask, 'Could she have beaten Maureen?' In every case the answer is, I think not."

Im fine with Serena being sixth as long as we all know that none of the former greats can touch her in her prime. Everybody knows by now that Serena is the real GOAT. Chrissie admits it, Nav knows it and hates it. Only Graf needs to be persuaded, which will be the case in a few years.

TennisPhan
Jun 17th, 2013, 07:54 PM
Well say whatever you want but in the last 7 half years of her career she won 0 slams, aged 22 to 29. To put that down solely to the stabbing and nothing else is somewhat delusional at best. No doubt the terrible stabbing was one of various factors for her and one of various factors of her lack of post stabbing success, but nobody when she came storming back and won her 2nd slam back predicted 0 more slams. However what soon happened is suddenly a ton of women emerged who could serve harder, hit the ball harder, take the ball on the rise, early, and time it with angles and geometrical dimensions similar to her own, and on top of that moved much better than even pre stabbing Seles (the latter always existed though, but she hit the ball so much better than all others that didnt matter much at one point). It is feasible to believe others emerging who had grown up with the same updated equipment was a large factor in that. On another note the unluckiest thing for Monica is 1993-1995 would have been her biggest years to shine outside of 1991-1992, and that is the period she mostly missed altogether. In hindsight the new era of upgraded big babe tennis was never going to be her time to shine, and alas it defintiely wasnt.

Imho Seles is just a slightly better/ more stable version of Bartoli at her best. Reminds me of her too.

KournikovaFan91
Jun 17th, 2013, 08:41 PM
Im fine with Serena being sixth as long as we all know that none of the former greats can touch her in her prime. Everybody knows by now that Serena is the real GOAT. Chrissie admits it, Nav knows it and hates it. Only Graf needs to be persuaded, which will be the case in a few years.

I'm not sure Graf actually gives a fuck about who people consider GOAT whether it be her or not.

50Sense
Jun 17th, 2013, 09:53 PM
Imho Seles is just a slightly better/ more stable version of Bartoli at her best. Reminds me of her too.

This is just wrong. I don't even know where to begin.

RenaGOAT94
Jun 17th, 2013, 10:03 PM
Where is Sharapova :awww: ?


:tape: :help: Sugarpova does not belong in GOAT convos. Maybe top 20.

AnnieIWillKnow
Jun 17th, 2013, 11:23 PM
:tape: :help: Sugarpova does not belong in GOAT convos. Maybe top 20.

If you're going purely by singles grand slams won, she's the joint 12th highest, so definitely top 20, even if other factors pull her down a few spots. But yes, definitely not GOAT convos - that discussion is between the top 5.

Miss Amor
Jun 17th, 2013, 11:38 PM
Next one to drop from all-time top 10 should be Lenglen or Connolly

If you're going purely by singles grand slams won, Sharapova's the joint 12th highest,

On the all-time list, she is not even in the top 30, if based purely on singles slam count.

Dementieva_Dude
Jun 18th, 2013, 12:51 AM
Imho Seles is just a slightly better/ more stable version of Bartoli at her best. Reminds me of her too.

That is so insulting to Monica, it's not even funny. A woman with 9 slams is 'slightly better' than a woman with 1 final on her resume? You've got to be kidding.:o

blackandblue
Jun 18th, 2013, 01:01 AM
Why do we even bother comparing modern tennis to Pre War tennis? The idea that the two are anywhere close in terms of competitiveness is frankly a joke.

Sarindipity
Jun 18th, 2013, 01:04 AM
Why do we even bother comparing modern tennis to Pre War tennis? The idea that the two are anywhere close in terms of competitiveness is frankly a joke.

Thank you.

Sarindipity
Jun 18th, 2013, 01:06 AM
Where is Sharapova :awww: ?

http://imageshack.us/a/img543/8404/tumblrm2k8x8ikhd1r8fqs6.gif

AnnieIWillKnow
Jun 18th, 2013, 01:12 AM
Next one to drop from all-time top 10 should be Lenglen or Connolly



On the all-time list, she is not even in the top 30, if based purely on singles slam count.

I personally don't think you can compare post-war tennis to the pre-war era definitively enough to say that some Victorian who won 5 Wimbledons is more of an all-time great than other modern players. A few stand-out players, yes, but I think that mostly the differences in terms of the field and how the game was organised are so vast that it's like comparing men's tennis to women's. Too many variables to do a direct comparison.