Tennis Forum banner

41 - 60 of 66 Posts

Registered
Joined
1,466 Posts
Nah, we count that as a loss.
Duhhh! I wrote "she was beaten." 馃槃

We live by "Justine Henin is a coward", and Lenglen gets no benefit of the doubt just because Molla Mallory was tanning her hide that day.
It would appear that Mallory was "tanning her hide" BECAUSE Lenglen was ill. It was the only time she beat her, after all.
 

Registered
Joined
2,552 Posts
That's a superb summation. Obviously you've quoted them in date order, but Lenglen's feat of winning 287 matches out of 288 (and retiring ill in the other), against the very best that the world had to offer (because she played against the best American players as well as the best Europeans) stands out for me - irrespective of styles or equipment.
Agreed and also because she won on both clay and grass.

Re: the bolded, nah, I love her, but at best she was hungover and didn't expect a potato-faced Norwegian-American dirt-farmer-turned-tennis-player to hit the cover off the ball that day. Even less legitimate a mid-match retirement than Henin, the biggest coward since.
 

Registered
Joined
2,552 Posts
Duhhh! I wrote "she was beaten." 馃槃
You also wrote "she didn't actually lose it" and I'm correcting the record ;-)


It would appear that Mallory was "tanning her hide" BECAUSE Lenglen was ill. It was the only time she beat her, after all.
Nah, she gets no quarter here. She came into that match cocky (like Serena, Wimbledon 2004) and probably hungover (unlike Serena), and her drunk jazz-age ass got whooped until she cried (the only reason she's lesser than Henin, in my mind). We know she had no problems withdrawing from tournaments if she felt unwell, she'd done so at the World Hard Court Championships a year prior.
 

Registered
Joined
1,691 Posts
That list is full of obvious contradictions and it麓s no surprising the list was made from US citizens.
They put a lot of relevance on doubles results at the top, rating both Navratilova and Serena above Graf but resting relevance to achievements like weeks #1 or CYGS, being Graf the only player together with Court to achieve it in that list, but then at the bottom, they rate Sharapova, above Hingis at 10?? Yes, Sharapova has that CGS because Hingis failed in those two FO finals but she beats Sharapova in almost any other parameter. A huge doubles resumee, multiple times more weeks #1, one more tour final, more overall titles etc. etc. That list looks worse than some random fan list in social media.
 

Registered
Joined
48 Posts
As much as I'd like to remove Graf from the list for either Seles or Venus Williams, I think she marked a significant turning point for the sport: the top player no longer has to care about the sport in a macro way, and can focus, in a micro-sense, on her own success. Graf paved the way for a lot of things we see today, from the early-era Williams sisters playing limited calendars and choosing what they wanted to play, to hell with the tour, to Maria Sharapova being a stone-cold ice monster, etc.
Wow I never quite connected the dots of WTA tour evolution from it's birth towards the business opportunity it presents today for Sharapova to milk and capitalize as clearly before.
 

it's just me against the music.
Joined
27,188 Posts
That list is full of obvious contradictions and it麓s no surprising the list was made from US citizens.
They put a lot of relevance on doubles results at the top, rating both Navratilova and Serena above Graf but resting relevance to achievements like weeks #1 or CYGS, being Graf the only player together with Court to achieve it in that list, but then at the bottom, they rate Sharapova, above Hingis at 10?? Yes, Sharapova has that CGS because Hingis failed in those two FO finals but she beats Sharapova in almost any other parameter. A huge doubles resumee, multiple times more weeks #1, one more tour final, more overall titles etc. etc. That list looks worse than some random fan list in social media.
Completely agree. The top 3 are Serena, Graf, Navratilova. And even if you somehow weigh doubles and not consider doubles wasn't as strong and it was easier to play all 3 events, how the heck do you put Sharapova over Hingis? Even with singles only, I put Hingis above Sharapova without a doubt. Sharapova over Hingis definitely shows the American bias.
 

Registered
Joined
1,545 Posts
Hingis has no bussiness here...

She was lucky to peak at the right time just the same way Kerber did. Graf was injured and probably bored with her complete dominance and the William sisters + Davenport weren't ready yet.

When power players reached their peak a few years later, she went packing to Switzerland and retired (n)
Hingis was a very good and fundamentally sound player. Good footwork. Soft hands. Finesse. I鈥檇 probably rank her top 10 to 15 all-time. I think she and Henin were in the same boat. They didn鈥檛 have the physicality to withstand the grueling game year after year, so they burnt out early. I would rather Hingis take Sharapova鈥檚 spot in the top ten. For me, Sharapova鈥檚 career slam isn鈥檛 worth as much as those extra tourneys won by Hingis and all those extra weeks at number one. Hingis was a much smarter player than Maria too. She also had respectable records against most of her contemporaries (Davenport, Venus, Serena, etc.), which can鈥檛 be said of Sharapova.
I think the top spot should go to Serena/Nav/Graf. We could argue all day about the records and weapons of those three.
 

Registered
Joined
287 Posts
Hingis was a very good and fundamentally sound player. Good footwork. Soft hands. Finesse. I鈥檇 probably rank her top 10 to 15 all-time. I think she and Henin were in the same boat. They didn鈥檛 have the physicality to withstand the grueling game year after year, so they burnt out early. I would rather Hingis take Sharapova鈥檚 spot in the top ten. For me, Sharapova鈥檚 career slam isn鈥檛 worth as much as those extra tourneys won by Hingis and all those extra weeks at number one. Hingis was a much smarter player than Maria too. She also had respectable records against most of her contemporaries (Davenport, Venus, Serena, etc.), which can鈥檛 be said of Sharapova.
I think the top spot should go to Serena/Nav/Graf. We could argue all day about the records and weapons of those three.
I mean while I loved Maria and I actually agree with you on most points made other that the respectable records against her counterparts. Other than serena, Maria had very strong head to heads against most top players in both eras that she played in (04-09, 10-15) so I don't think that should play a factor. But hingis' doubles career, more weeks at #1, more titles and period of dominance on tour I think definitely give her a slight edge over the CGS

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 

Registered
Joined
756 Posts
1. Serena
2. Venus
3. Martina N.
4. Steffi
5. Justine
6. Monica
7. Bianca
8. Naomi
9. Chrissie
10. Martina H.

I'm 59 yo. Been watching pro tennis since 1972 -- Chrissie at the U.S. Open. What I'm trying to do here is imagine a counter-factual scenario in which these women could play each other. That's why, e.g., Chrissie, pin-point precise as her groundies were, doesn't actually play with Naomi or Bianca, the two best players in the game right now. That's what I think -- that founders-generation wouldn't be able to stay on the same court with the game-post-Williams sisters. However, with proper supply of a big racquet and training, I'd love to see how the quartet of Navratilova/Steffi/Seles/Henin would do.

Oh, and I never saw Margaret Court play (but I've heard her commentate -- which was ugly enough). And Maria does not convince me that Meldonium isn't the reason she took the last of her majors -- the French she stole from Halep. Halep would be an interesting prospect for this list if she had that third major.
Your list is a complete joke and an insult to Evert. She was a far better player playing with a graphite racquet in her early '30s than in her 20s playing with wood. Anyway you should never compare eras. That's a given. At 59 yo you should know better. I'd love to see Osaka and Andreescu with a wooden racquet though.
 

Registered
Joined
113,374 Posts
I have no problem with Navratlova at #1. When she played, winning the most majors was not the goal of the GOAT. It was to build the tour up and she won 167 titles. Thats 10 a year for almost 17 years. She didnt play all the majors and certainly didnt prep for them as these special all meaningful events that they are treated as now.
But the argument that depth is much better this century with the huge money involved is valid for Serena.
So to me, either way is okay. Then Graf, who had a big rival knifed when she was 19. Its impossible to place Seles because she was potentially heading for GOAT before being knifed. Hingis & Sharapova is also very close. I think Hingis doubles gives her a slight edge, but Sharapova had shoulder surgery when she was really good and I thought she would have won many more majors if her shoulder was okay. Venus would have won more without the auto immune illness that happened when she was only one major behind Serena
 

Art & Futures
Joined
20,406 Posts
open era

1. Martina
2. Serena
3. Steffi
4. Chris
5. Monica
6. BJK
7. Venus
8. EGC
9. Henin
10. Hingis

idk where to put Margaret
 

Registered
Joined
173 Posts
Let's be honest, the only people putting Navratilova on Top are posters who are members of the LGBT community, we all know Serena would have wiped the floor with here on any surface.

The Top two is a clear battle between Serena and Graf, nobody else is in their league.
 

Registered
Joined
1,466 Posts
Let's be honest, the only people putting Navratilova on Top are posters who are members of the LGBT community
Rubbish.

we all know Serena would have wiped the floor with here on any surface.
No, we don't.

The Top two is a clear battle between Serena and Graf, nobody else is in their league.
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but others obviously don't share your view.
 

Registered
Joined
1,545 Posts
1. Serena
2. Venus
3. Martina N.
4. Steffi
5. Justine
6. Monica
7. Bianca
8. Naomi
9. Chrissie
10. Martina H.

I'm 59 yo. Been watching pro tennis since 1972 -- Chrissie at the U.S. Open. What I'm trying to do here is imagine a counter-factual scenario in which these women could play each other. That's why, e.g., Chrissie, pin-point precise as her groundies were, doesn't actually play with Naomi or Bianca, the two best players in the game right now. That's what I think -- that founders-generation wouldn't be able to stay on the same court with the game-post-Williams sisters. However, with proper supply of a big racquet and training, I'd love to see how the quartet of Navratilova/Steffi/Seles/Henin would do.

Oh, and I never saw Margaret Court play (but I've heard her commentate -- which was ugly enough). And Maria does not convince me that Meldonium isn't the reason she took the last of her majors -- the French she stole from Halep. Halep would be an interesting prospect for this list if she had that third major.
It鈥檚 interesting that you put WS at number 1-2. I鈥檓 guessing that you鈥檙e going on peak play then? Your inclusion of Bianca and Naomi on here is puzzling. Again, perhaps you鈥檙e going on peak level. The thing is, talented as Bianca is, she鈥檚 only had one good season, and she only managed to play about half of it. Are her performances at Indian Wells and NYC good enough to leap frog those multi slam winners you put below her? I think a champion is someone who can win again and again, and as much as I like Bianca she hasn鈥檛 proved that she can yet. Too soon to tell. Naomi is too erratic for me to include on this list. When she鈥檚 on, she鈥檚 obviously among the best of her generation, but, much as I like her, she sometimes looks too lackluster. I wouldn鈥檛 rank Justine over Monica either. Not only does Monica have more slams, but her run of dominance in the early 90s easily beats Justine鈥檚 鈥07 in my book.
 

Registered
Joined
95 Posts
You're correct about what you take to be my assumption: peak play. Imagine a scenario in which they play each other at their individual peaks, so far.

Perhaps I was being tendentious, and I will admit I haven't watched Justine in a while -- that was from memory, my ranking Monica Seles below her -- I had just watched on YT Monica play Steffi, which was fantastic, btw -- but I'm just trying to suggest that these young women, Naomi Osaka and Bibi Andreescu, play at a high level when they're on. Whereas, I'm sorry, I have enormous love/respect for Chrissie and it was so much fun to watch Hingis dismantle these top players when she was --what? -- 16? but really I don't think they could stay on the same court with Steffi, let alone the Williams sisters. For me the part that was guilty was leaving Azarenka off the list, cuz at her best she could give the WS a run, and there are majors to back that up . . . Then, too, Martina Navratilova was revolutionary in the game, so let me respond to the reply above that accuses me of failing to recognize the racquet differences -- I do not. I've watched Chrissie play with the racquet we all play with -- you can say, well, Chrissie would have played differently with a different racquet -- it may well be. But it introduces a level of counterfactual into the discussion that is a bridge too far for me. So, how does Chrissie get on my list as against the elder generation -- Margaret Court, Suzanne Lenglen et. al. -- none of whom I've closely watched? Athleticism -- the aspect of the game in which Martina Navritilova was so revolutionary. From what I can tell, just by looking at the old tape, we're really not looking at the same species of athlete as we move from Court, say, to Martina. A phenomena that has agitated Court's tongue viz. Martina. To which, I join Martina in saying: F--- off.
 

Registered
Joined
1,466 Posts
...So, how does Chrissie get on my list as against the elder generation -- Margaret Court, Suzanne Lenglen et. al. -- none of whom I've closely watched? Athleticism -- the aspect of the game in which Martina Navritilova was so revolutionary...
It was Lenglen who introduced the concept of athleticism (as we know it) to women's tennis. Even on the limited videos I've seen, I believe that she would have wiped the floor with pretty much every player since then if she had had the opportunity to travel through time and play and train the way that today's players do.

...but I'm just trying to suggest that these young women, Naomi Osaka and Bibi Andreescu, play at a high level when they're on.
And, whilst I appreciate your reasoning behind including Osaka and Andreescu on your list, I believe it is way too early to even consider them in this regard. No matter how high their level, the others in your list performed CONSISTENTLY at that level for years. So far Osaka has won two Grand Slam singles titles, and Andreescu one, the latter in basically half a season. I'm quite happy to concede that they MAY be worth an entry in this list in (say) five years, but to put them on it now does a disservice to them as much as to the truly great players that you've omitted.
 

Registered
Joined
1,513 Posts
How anyone can dispute Serena's claim to the GOAT title at this point is absolutely staggering to me.
 
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
Top