The Greatest Female Tennis Player of All Time

[Kieran]

Sukova was actually the kind of player that troubled Martina more than Chris. Martina took a long time to get her passing shots, and return grooved, and her backhand pass was 'readable' so the tall, heavy hitting serve/ volleyers like Shriver, Sukova, Kohde Kilch always got victories over Navratilova before they got one over Chris. Martina's return of that hard flat serve simply was not as effective as Evert's.

Matter of fact, I looked at all the players who were 5'9"or taller to see when they got their first victory/last victory over Evert . There was only one I am sure of, between the time during her prime years June 1974 through June of 1986 by Lisa Bonder (5'10") in 1983. None for Court, Leslie Allen, Karen Kranscke, Sukova, Shriver, Kodhe Kilch, Mary Jo Fernandez, Silvia Hanika within those timeframes. Graf's first victory may fit the parameters, depending on whether she had reached her full adult ht at 16 in April of 1986.

Think about it. Court's last win was before Evert's 1st RG. Sukova's first was 6 months after Evert's last RG, . Shriver got her's in 1987 as did Hanika after they got any against Martina. That's 13 years of virtual blemish free record against these tall lanky sorts. I actually posted this factoid to Shriver herself ( so she would not quite feel alone) , and she said she was not surprised. She believed that Evert did a better job exploiting mobility issues by tall women like herself, jerking them around that baseline, hitting behind them etc.

That’s great stuff, really interesting. And yeah, Evert would be just the player to explore successfully any weakness in mobility.

Thanks!

 

[Kieran]

Going back to '87 hurts! After Borg's retirement at the end of '81, thinking of Martina going out so soon was disturbing! After a sensational run from the end of '81 to the end of '86, in '87 she was only getting to finals, but wasn't able to close them out! She finally won Wimbledon over Graf! It was so bizarre! It was like she was being punished for all her sucess, maybe destined to lose any tight match in a final! Grass was no guarantee of sucess as she dropped a 1st set lead of 5-1, at Eastborne losing to Sukova 6-7, 3-6! It could't be explained! Her season was salvaged by defeating Graf again at the USO, but she was never the same player! The embarrassment of the FO in '88 to Zvereva knocked me off my feet! I didn't know who she was! That last Wimbledon win in '90 saved those last few seasons!

She was getting on in years. It’s always hard to watch these old warriors lose something in themselves. Martina once said that as players get older, they become more nervous. She said she found that strange, as if the opposite should be the case and a players experience should boost them, but as always, she was right. Only took her game to be off a smidge, less assertive and sure, less athletic too, and players exploited it…

 

[britbox]

Old Thread, re-incarnated 9+ years later. Fondly remember some of those posters who chipped in at the beginning.

My own re-assessed view is:

1. Williams S
2. Graf
3. Nav
4. Evert
5. Court

I think 4 and 5 are interchangeable. I don't think anyone comes close to these 5. I'd probably put the Top 3 slightly higher by a whisker than the 4 and 5.

 

[BTURNER]

She was getting on in years. It’s always hard to watch these old warriors lose something in themselves. Martina once said that as players get older, they become more nervous. She said she found that strange, as if the opposite should be the case and a players experience should boost them, but as always, she was right. Only took her game to be off a smidge, less assertive and sure, less athletic too, and players exploited it…

Martina was the ultimate 'confidence' player. Everything about her game depended on her being confident that her first serve worked for her. So when her second serve began to be more and more 'defensive' landing short, and having virtually nothing on it, her service games lost potency, and that in turn put a lot of pressure on her return of serve to stay deep against these hard hitting baseliners, which was never her great strength in the first place. In her era, depth on the return was not that vital because there wasn't enough power out there to take full advantage. Once Graf, and then Seles hit the tour those days were over!

 

[BTURNER]

A friend sent me this chart yesterday of the GOAT of women’s tennis:

View attachment 7142

Graf tops the list because she’s No. 1 in 3 out of 7 categories. I see what he’s done: not allowing just GS titles to dictate the GOAT. While there’s merit to that argument, I still can’t help but think it’s wrong not to have Serena as No. 1.

Thoughts?

Evert gets ripped off because she had already been seen as the best player on the planet for over a year before this computorized system began to count w/ its first week calculation

 

[Fiero425]

Evert gets ripped off because she had already been seen as the best player on the planet for over a year before this computorized system began to count w/ its first week calculation

Those early days of the WTA computer must have been more like a paper record! After many years corrections had to be made! At one time it was believed Evonne Goolagong played well enough to become #1 for at least 2 weeks! It took decades down the line to acknowledge it! Martina mouth'd off that she "had won more tournaments than Evert had entered in '78!" Chris finished ahead of her as YE #1! Evert had taken off the Spring to marry John Lloyd! She missed a few big events before coming back to take the USO at Flushing! It was bogus, maybe too soon after her defection in '75 IMO!

 

[BTURNER]

That’s great stuff, really interesting. And yeah, Evert would be just the player to explore successfully any weakness in mobility.

Thanks!

Just to finish my comparison. Evert's prime was June 1974-June 1989, a span of 13 years. Martina's was July 1978-July 1990, a span of 12 years. We established that Evert sustained two losses to women 5'9" or taller, neither of which are big serve/volleyers. Lets see how Martina did with those same S/V players during her prime. She lost to Stove x1 1980, Shriver x 3, Sukova x 4, Hanika x 2, Kodhe Kilch x 2. Lets take away any argument that this was due to these opponents improving dramatically since June of 86 by using that cut-off date. Stove x1, Shriver x3, Sukova x1, Hanika x 2, Kodhe Kilch x 2. The only change is that Sukova gains 3 victories between 1986-1990.

Martina was stronger more agile and faster than Evert, so we know she is getting to their approach shots and first volleys better, and is taking the net away from them better than Chris. She also has the advantage of having greater reach and that heavy slice option off her backhand. Still this was definitely a worse match up for Martina than Chris. Of course Evert was better at anticipating the direction of the big bomb. I also think that Martina had trouble deciding whether to get her slice backhand pass or her topspin backhand pass grooved. If you watch, if she is failing with one, she tries the other, and vice versa. She has too many choices off that wing and ends up lacking confidence in either for big points.

 

[tossip]

It's a meaningless thread if Serena is not part of the conversation.

 

[BTURNER]

It's a meaningless thread if Serena is not part of the conversation.

I never see anyone really debating the nominees. That's pretty clear cut. I do see people waging war over their final order.

 

[El Dude]

With Serena's career over, we're left with a three-headed GOAT: Navratilova, Graf, Serena, with Evert and Court a hair behind (if we count Court's whole career).

Such a huge gap between those four (or five) and everyone else.

I just can't pick the order, except to say Evert is 4th, because each offer different flavors of greatness. The gap between Serena and all of her peers when she was on her game was enormous...but the key is, "when she was on her game." Her career, while long, was erratic with lots of ups and downs. A more consistent Serena would be the easy GOAT, but I don't think we can ignore the fact that she won less than half the titles of Chris and Martina, and it took her longer to complete her Slam count than all of them:

Serena: 23 Slams in 19 years (1999-2017)
Steffi: 22 Slams in 13 years (1987-1999)
Martina: 18 Slams in 13 years (1978-1990)
Chris: 18 Slams in 13 years (1974-1986)

In Serena's first 13 years (starting with her first Slam), she won "only" 13.

Or we can parse it this way:

Serena: 23 Titles of 81 Slams played (28.4%)
Steffi: 22 Titles of 54 Slams played (40.7%)
Martina: 18 Titles of 67 Slams played (26.9%)
Evert: 18 Titles of 56 Slams played (32.1%)
Seles: 9 Titles of 31 Slams played (29.0%)...or 8 of her first 14 (57.1%)

And that's just Slams. Serena's low title total works against her, and the other three match up well in rankings - and all were far more consistent.

People always put Evert 4th (or 5th, if counting Court), but the gap between her and Martina is far smaller than it is her and everyone else (other than Court). I'd even say that Evert is slightly underrated; she's no Andy Murray and truly belongs in the Big Four.

Steffi's flaws are two-fold: A slightly shortened career, and the Monica Seles problem. Meaning, how can she be the GOAT when she had been surpassed by another player in the middle of her peak? Does anyone actually think that 1993-96 would have happened if tragedy hadn't struck Seles? In that case, we might be talking about a Big Five...or it might be that Seles edges ahead of everyone, as her level in 1991-92 was unbelievable.

On the other hand, Seles' dominance over Steffi is a bit over-stated...she was 3-1 vs her in Slams in 1990-92, but Steffi's win was a blowout and Seles' wins were all very close matches. It may be that Steffi would have eventually balanced things out.

It is tempting to give it to Martina, but I think at their best, Steffi and Serena were more dominant.

So if I combine overall career record and peak dominance, I've got to go with....damn, I don't know. I want to say:

1. Steffi
2. Martina
3. Serena
4. Chris
5. Court
6. Seles

...and then King, Goolagong, Henin, Venus, Hingis in some form or fashion.

I don't like having Serena 3rd, but I can't imagine Steffi not in the top 2, and I don't want to slip Martina down to 4th. So I'm going with that. For now.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Steffi's flaws are two-fold: A slightly shortened career, and the Monica Seles problem. Meaning, how can she be the GOAT when she had been surpassed by another player in the middle of her peak? Does anyone actually think that 1993-96 would have happened if tragedy hadn't struck Seles? In that case, we might be talking about a Big Five...or it might be that Seles edges ahead of everyone, as her level in 1991-92 was unbelievable.

On the other hand, Seles' dominance over Steffi is a bit over-stated...she was 3-1 vs her in Slams in 1990-92, but Steffi's win was a blowout and Seles' wins were all very close matches. It may be that Steffi would have eventually balanced things out.

It is tempting to give it to Martina, but I think at their best, Steffi and Serena were more dominant.

And don't forget about Jennifer Capriati's personal problems striking down what would have been her prime years. If the problems never happened (or even came two years later), I think there's a very good chance Capriati would have dominated in 1994 and into 1995 (just look at the names of the people who won the slams from the 1994 FO to the 1995 AO, Jennifer was much more talented than them). To me, the biggest what if in tennis is how 1993-1995 would have played out if Seles and Capriati were healthy and available to play.

Perhaps the reason why Martina wasn't dominant as Steffi and Serena is the fact that her biggest rivals, Evert and Graf, are listed in the poll itself. It's hard to be truly dominant when going up against 2 of the Top 4 players of all-time. Despite that, Martina had the most career titles and won 6 slams in a row. (I don't care what anyone says, Martina's 1984 season is a calendar slam in my book. Just because the AO happened in December 1983 and just days before the new year doesn't discount the fact that she won the AO, FO, Wimbledon, and US Open in order. That's the traditional definition of a calendar slam, not some arbitrary "January 1-December 31" definition. It's pretty ridicuolus to count 1977 as a 5-slam year or 1986 as a 3-slam year.)

To me, Martina winning the 1990 Wimbledon Championship during Graf's prime is good enough for me to call her the GOAT. However, I feel that Martina would be the undisputed GOAT if she had held off Conchita Martinez at the 1994 Wimbledon Championship and retired on top with her 19th slam.

 

[Kieran]

And don't forget about Jennifer Capriati's personal problems striking down what would have been her prime years. If the problems never happened (or even came two years later), I think there's a very good chance Capriati would have dominated in 1994 and into 1995 (just look at the names of the people who won the slams from the 1994 FO to the 1995 AO, Jennifer was much more talented than them). To me, the biggest what if in tennis is how 1993-1995 would have played out if Seles and Capriati were healthy and available to play.

Perhaps the reason why Martina wasn't dominant as Steffi and Serena is the fact that her biggest rivals, Evert and Graf, are listed in the poll itself. It's hard to be truly dominant when going up against 2 of the Top 4 players of all-time. Despite that, Martina had the most career titles and won 6 slams in a row. (I don't care what anyone says, Martina's 1984 season is a calendar slam in my book. Just because the AO happened in December 1983 and just days before the new year doesn't discount the fact that she won the AO, FO, Wimbledon, and US Open in order. That's the traditional definition of a calendar slam, not some arbitrary "January 1-December 31" definition. It's pretty ridicuolus to count 1977 as a 5-slam year or 1986 as a 3-slam year.)

To me, Martina winning the 1990 Wimbledon Championship during Graf's prime is good enough for me to call her the GOAT. However, I feel that Martina would be the undisputed GOAT if she had held off Conchita Martinez at the 1994 Wimbledon Championship and retired on top with her 19th slam.

I agree with all this, especially about Martina, but the calendar year GS is confined to a single calendar year, that's what makes it so difficult. It was shocking to me when she lost that semifinal in 1984, and I think her six-in-a-row is one of the great achievements ever, certainly an evidence of how great and dominant she was at her peak. The lack of a CYGS hasn't diminished her in any way...

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I agree with all this, especially about Martina, but the calendar year GS is confined to a single calendar year, that's what makes it so difficult. It was shocking to me when she lost that semifinal in 1984, and I think her six-in-a-row is one of the great achievements ever, certainly an evidence of how great and dominant she was at her peak. The lack of a CYGS hasn't diminished her in any way...

At the time, though, Martina's December 1983 AO-1984 US Open was widely considered a CYGS. It was only years later that people retroactively removed the designation. I won't because to me, the definition of a CYGS is winning the AO, FO, Wimbledon, and US Open in that order. Just because the AO was moved to December in the late 70s or early 80s, doesn't (at least in my opinion) shift the start of the tennis year to FO for those years (and make 1977 a "long" year and 1986 a "short" year). To me, the tennis GS year begins with the AO and ends with the US Open. I will always consider the December AOs to be the following GS year. For me:

January 1977 AO = 1977 GS year
December 1977 AO = 1978 GS year
Martina's December 1983 AO win = 1984 GS year
Martina's December 1984 AO loss = 1985 GS year

Here's why:

1. In 1977, if a player had won the January AO, FO, Wimbledon, and US Open, but not the December AO, should that negate the CYGS even though the player had won all 4 events during the year?

2. In 1986, if a player had won the FO, Wimbledon, and US Open, but lost the Australian Open before (December 1985) and after (January 1987), should that be considered a CYGS even though the player didn't win the AO?

 

[Kieran]

At the time, though, Martina's December 1983 AO-1984 US Open was widely considered a CYGS. It was only years later that people retroactively removed the designation. I won't because to me, the definition of a CYGS is winning the AO, FO, Wimbledon, and US Open in that order. Just because the AO was moved to December in the late 70s or early 80s, doesn't (at least in my opinion) shift the start of the tennis year to FO for those years (and make 1977 a "long" year and 1986 a "short" year). To me, the tennis GS year begins with the AO and ends with the US Open. I will always consider the December AOs to be the following GS year. For me:

January 1977 AO = 1977 GS year
December 1977 AO = 1978 GS year
Martina's December 1983 AO win = 1984 GS year
Martina's December 1984 AO loss = 1985 GS year

Here's why:

1. In 1977, if a player had won the January AO, FO, Wimbledon, and US Open, but not the December AO, should that negate the CYGS even though the player had won all 4 events during the year?

2. In 1986, if a player had won the FO, Wimbledon, and US Open, but lost the Australian Open before (December 1985) and after (January 1987), should that be considered a CYGS even though the player didn't win the AO?

The Australian Open was only played in December back then, there was no “January 1977 AO.” They wisely switched the tournament to January in 1987, I think, so there was one year where the AO wasn’t held.

In answer to question number 2, I would say that the absence of the AO that year meant the full GS calendar didn’t happen. Remember we count the tennis year not according to the succession of slams but according to the calendar. And by the way, like I said, Martina’s achievements are so grand that she doesn’t need the CYGS to be considered as great or greater than anyone who ever played. She’s fairly remarkably unique as it is..

 

[BTURNER]

With Serena's career over, we're left with a three-headed GOAT: Navratilova, Graf, Serena, with Evert and Court a hair behind (if we count Court's whole career).

Such a huge gap between those four (or five) and everyone else.

I just can't pick the order, except to say Evert is 4th, because each offer different flavors of greatness. The gap between Serena and all of her peers when she was on her game was enormous...but the key is, "when she was on her game." Her career, while long, was erratic with lots of ups and downs. A more consistent Serena would be the easy GOAT, but I don't think we can ignore the fact that she won less than half the titles of Chris and Martina, and it took her longer to complete her Slam count than all of them:

Serena: 23 Slams in 19 years (1999-2017)
Steffi: 22 Slams in 13 years (1987-1999)
Martina: 18 Slams in 13 years (1978-1990)
Chris: 18 Slams in 13 years (1974-1986)

In Serena's first 13 years (starting with her first Slam), she won "only" 13.

Or we can parse it this way:

Serena: 23 Titles of 81 Slams played (28.4%)
Steffi: 22 Titles of 54 Slams played (40.7%)
Martina: 18 Titles of 67 Slams played (26.9%)
Evert: 18 Titles of 56 Slams played (32.1%)
Seles: 9 Titles of 31 Slams played (29.0%)...or 8 of her first 14 (57.1%)

And that's just Slams. Serena's low title total works against her, and the other three match up well in rankings - and all were far more consistent.

People always put Evert 4th (or 5th, if counting Court), but the gap between her and Martina is far smaller than it is her and everyone else (other than Court). I'd even say that Evert is slightly underrated; she's no Andy Murray and truly belongs in the Big Four.

Steffi's flaws are two-fold: A slightly shortened career, and the Monica Seles problem. Meaning, how can she be the GOAT when she had been surpassed by another player in the middle of her peak? Does anyone actually think that 1993-96 would have happened if tragedy hadn't struck Seles? In that case, we might be talking about a Big Five...or it might be that Seles edges ahead of everyone, as her level in 1991-92 was unbelievable.

On the other hand, Seles' dominance over Steffi is a bit over-stated...she was 3-1 vs her in Slams in 1990-92, but Steffi's win was a blowout and Seles' wins were all very close matches. It may be that Steffi would have eventually balanced things out.

It is tempting to give it to Martina, but I think at their best, Steffi and Serena were more dominant.

So if I combine overall career record and peak dominance, I've got to go with....damn, I don't know. I want to say:

1. Steffi
2. Martina
3. Serena
4. Chris
5. Court
6. Seles

...and then King, Goolagong, Henin, Venus, Hingis in some form or fashion.

I don't like having Serena 3rd, but I can't imagine Steffi not in the top 2, and I don't want to slip Martina down to 4th. So I'm going with that. For now.

I am singularly unimpressed with Martina's numbers below.
Slam Career win/loss % 1.Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of majors champ won 1. Court 51.1% 2 .Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reached final 1.Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion 1.Court 83% 2.Graf 73.1% 3.Serena 71.9% 4. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of major reached SF's 1. Evert 92.9% 2.Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion 1.Court 86.6% 2.Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major Reached QF's 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5.Serena 74.1%have
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%

Martina is NEVER in the top two in any of these categories while Evert is among the top 2 5 times. Evert does substantially better in every category but two to win the same 18 slams and reach two more finals. Martina does not excel in any of these stats. I think you have to conclude that both Evert and Graf have better grand slam success in singles than Martina.

 

[Fiero425]

I am singularly unimpressed with Martina's numbers below.
Slam Career win/loss % 1.Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of majors champ won 1. Court 51.1% 2 .Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reached final 1.Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion 1.Court 83% 2.Graf 73.1% 3.Serena 71.9% 4. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of major reached SF's 1. Evert 92.9% 2.Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion 1.Court 86.6% 2.Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major Reached QF's 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5.Serena 74.1%have
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%

Martina is NEVER in the top two in any of these categories while Evert is among the top 2 5 times. Evert does substantially better in every category but two to win the same 18 slams and reach two more finals. Martina does not excel in any of these stats. I think you have to conclude that both Evert and Graf have better grand slam success in singles than Martina.

Many factors made Martina's development taking longer! Besides being exposed to the Western world and eating herself into oblivion, she was trying to overcome getting asylum, separation from her family, and subsequent citizenship in '81! She was terribly talented, but mentally she wasn't there until much later! When she got there, she ruled like few others in the past, delivering bread sticks and bagels to every match possible! She was the reason they took the VS CHP to BO5 just to keep her on the court longer than an hour! By 1984, Navrqatilova was even toying with Chris Evert on clay! I think what hurt her the most was overplaying! She played every possible event, winning all 3 USO events in 1987! It may have been worth it to have 377 total titles (167 sing., 177 doub.)! She has a BOX SET, finishing it up with 2003 MxD win "down under!" (59 Majors in Pro Era won't ever be beat)

 

[BTURNER]

Many factors made Martina's development taking longer! Besides being exposed to the Western world and eating herself into oblivion, she was trying to overcome getting asylum, separation from her family, and subsequent citizenship in '81! She was terribly talented, but mentally she wasn't there until much later! When she got there, she ruled like few others in the past, delivering bread sticks and bagels to every match possible! She was the reason they took the VS CHP to BO5 just to keep her on the court longer than an hour! By 1984, Navrqatilova was even toying with Chris Evert on clay! I think what hurt her the most was overplaying! She played every possible event, winning all 3 USO events in 1987! It may have been worth it to have 377 total titles (167 sing., 177 doub.)! She has a BOX SET, finishing it up with 2003 MxD win "down under!" (59 Majors in Pro Era won't ever be beat)

Martina has three problems with these slam numbers above. 1. She took her sweet time getting her game and brain together from1973-1977 reaching to two slam finals in 1975, and then nothing for two more years.
2. she has a major slump in 1980 through the early summer of 1981 dropping for #1 to #4 in the world and goes 7 consecutive slams reaching only one final before she finally wins the Aussie of 1981.
3. She plays 7 years from 1987-1994 ( putting aside her 2004 debacle )only winning one slam the entire time.

I thought considering how often she beat Chris in slam finals that her finals conversion rate would be excellent, but its not that much better than Evert's. That's because of course Evert takes her share of bites and Steffi takes her share, with Hana, Tracy, Goolagong, Seles, and Martinez nibbling as well. My point is that Evert's singles slam record is definitively better than Martina's. Martina did not achieve anything more than Evert and sustained a whole lot more losses and most of them earlier to do it. You have to include doubles and mixed in slams to get Martina up there, and then of course she soars with only Court in her league. but if you do that, then you might end up pushing Evert and Graf below King and Bueno

If you are sticking with singles, I think Graf has the best slam record with a near perfect marriage of consistent and peak play when all four of these tournaments drew the deepest fields.

 

[shawnbm]

I voted for Steffi, but by a whisker over Chrissie. I don't know--if I had to have a lady play for my life on clay it would be Evert without question. Frankly, likely the same answer for hard courts. Steffi and Martina get the nod over her on grass and possibly tie her on grass. To me, Chrissie, Martina and Steffi are the Big Three of ladies' tennis, with Court, Seles, and Serena being the next level.

 

[El Dude]

I am singularly unimpressed with Martina's numbers below.
Slam Career win/loss % 1.Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of majors champ won 1. Court 51.1% 2 .Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reached final 1.Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion 1.Court 83% 2.Graf 73.1% 3.Serena 71.9% 4. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of major reached SF's 1. Evert 92.9% 2.Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion 1.Court 86.6% 2.Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major Reached QF's 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5.Serena 74.1%have
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%

Martina is NEVER in the top two in any of these categories while Evert is among the top 2 5 times. Evert does substantially better in every category but two to win the same 18 slams and reach two more finals. Martina does not excel in any of these stats. I think you have to conclude that both Evert and Graf have better grand slam success in singles than Martina.

Sorry for the late reply - I forgot about this thread. Interesting stats. To further your point, let's look at some Slam results:

Grand Slam W-F-SF-QF (total Slams)
Evert: 18-16-18-2 (56)
Navratilova: 18-14-12-9 (67)
Graf: 22-8-6-5 (54)
Serena: 23-10-7-14 (81)

Now let's convert those to point values, using 10 points for a Slam win, 5 for a final, 3 for a semifinal, and 1 for a quarterfinal. We get:

Evert: 316
Navratilova: 295
Graf: 283
Serena: 315

Now let's divide them by Slams played:

Evert: 5.6
Navratilova: 4.4
Graf: 5.2
Serena: 3.9

In other words, Evert comes out ahead in both categories, in terms of how deep she went in Slams. It is absolutely crazy that she reached the SF or better in 52 of 56 Slams she played in...one of the more remarkable records in tennis history.

Now of course other factors have to be considered in terms of greatness rankings, but in this regard, Evert shines.

 

[tented]

Sorry for the late reply - I forgot about this thread. Interesting stats. To further your point, let's look at some Slam results:

Grand Slam W-F-SF-QF (total Slams)
Evert: 18-16-18-2 (56)
Navratilova: 18-14-12-9 (67)
Graf: 22-8-6-5 (54)
Serena: 23-10-7-14 (81)

Now let's convert those to point values, using 10 points for a Slam win, 5 for a final, 3 for a semifinal, and 1 for a quarterfinal. We get:

Evert: 316
Navratilova: 295
Graf: 283
Serena: 315

Now let's divide them by Slams played:

Evert: 5.6
Navratilova: 4.4
Graf: 5.2
Serena: 3.9

In other words, Evert comes out ahead in both categories, in terms of how deep she went in Slams. It is absolutely crazy that she reached the SF or better in 52 of 56 Slams she played in...one of the more remarkable records in tennis history.

Now of course other factors have to be considered in terms of greatness rankings, but in this regard, Evert shines.

If I had had to guess which one of these four was going to end up in the top spot, Evert would have been my last pick. Going purely by numbers, as you’ve done, I figured Graf would be No. 1 because of her dominance within a relatively short period (compared to the other three).