Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
298 Posts
Nope. There are plenty of players who have far better stats than Serena. Serena is the best player post 1999, not among the best overall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,808 Posts
Aside from slam numbers, Serena's longevity is what makes her stand out. Not only has she been able to play, and win, well into her mid-30s, she also dominated the tour, although sometimes not alone, for an extremely long period of time. She was at least a consistently dominant force for very long. Her dominance, whether shared or not, effectively ended in 2017, after the Australian Open. When do people say it started? 2002? You're looking at 15 years of lone or shared dominance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carnet

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
She is one of the GOATs that is for sure. It just depends on what you put the most value: Slams alone, no. 1 alone, combination of many things, titles overall, medals, longetivity, competition, technology progression, etc. pp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Serena only won 13!! slams by the age Graf already won her 22 slam. At that time players retired at the early 30´s at most so nobody believed Serena could go for the record, Serena was not even close to Navratilova at age 30.
She needed that weak era after Henin´s retirement between 2012 and 2014 to add tons of slams in which Wozniacki, Azarenka and Sharapova were her main rivals, even so, she never won the year slam
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
298 Posts
That would be Margaret Court
Australian is the weakest of the majors in the 1960s and 1970s when Australia was only a colony of Britain. Wimbledon is the oldest and most prestigious major. Australian is the youngest and least prestigious major. 10 Australians = 1 Wimbledon. So Margaret Court didn't have the best career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115,505 Posts
Serena is making a strong case that she is one of the great players but not GOAT. Her mental game is a lot like Dinara Safina now. Saves her worst tennis for slam finals
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,118 Posts
That would be Margaret Court
Australian is the weakest of the majors in the 1960s and 1970s when Australia was only a colony of Britain. Wimbledon is the oldest and most prestigious major. Australian is the youngest and least prestigious major. 10 Australians = 1 Wimbledon. So Margaret Court didn't have the best career.
That is extremely arguable. You can't claim this as fact because there are many reasons to counter. Citing colonialism as a way to prove your argument is silly lol.

If that's the case, then by your own admission and for the sake of argument, Serena has 16 GS and Graf 18 GS and Nadal is the true GOAT? Hmmmmm....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
Queen serena will always be the GOAT :worship:

Court was beating her cousins and the dress maker when she won all those australian opens :eek:
Margaret won all the slams so shouldn't be dismissed, and if we look at the top six slam winners, they all won slams where you can go "well that wasn't the hardest draw" or had main rivals missing for one reason or another. A player can only beat who they face and Serena might be the greatest but her game isn't perfect and is possibly the most up and down of the top six.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,828 Posts
If you don't want to count AO titles then Graf is undisputed GOAT with 18 slams outside Australia. Serena won 16 slams outside Australia.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,207 Posts
Why do we need other people to share the same opinion that [insert a name here] is the GOAT or not? If they think Serena is, good; if not, it doesn’t diminish her achievement one bit. Why do we need to tell people if she is or is not GOAT? She’s a champion no matter what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HippityHop

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
Australian is the weakest of the majors in the 1960s and 1970s when Australia was only a colony of Britain. Wimbledon is the oldest and most prestigious major. Australian is the youngest and least prestigious major. 10 Australians = 1 Wimbledon. So Margaret Court didn't have the best career.
What does that say about Wimbledon winners >:)

Australia still has the same British queen has head of state and I think the French might be younger in terms of being an open tournament but I might be wrong on that :cool:

Helen Wills Moody didn't play the AO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Australian is the weakest of the majors in the 1960s and 1970s when Australia was only a colony of Britain. Wimbledon is the oldest and most prestigious major. Australian is the youngest and least prestigious major. 10 Australians = 1 Wimbledon. So Margaret Court didn't have the best career.
She has the slam record and she won her last 23 at age 31, by that age Serena was still fighting to get to Navratilova´s slam count
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,314 Posts
In my personal opinion there is a foursome standing out who dominated their respective eras and who are too hard to compare in overall achievements and just different circumstances to conclusively proclaim one the GOAT. Serena, Steffi, Navratilova and Court. Maybe Evert can be up there as well.

To say Serena is a lesser player than Court, or Graf is a lesser player than Serena because of one Slam less is, again in my opinion, ludicrous tunnel vision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kooyong and Molok
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top