The Greatest Female Tennis Player of All Time

[El Dude]

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).

Yeah, I was a bit surprised. That "SF+" record for Evert is truly amazing. Evidently she had a higher floor, or base level at Slams, than any player in history, male or female.

But to be fair to Steffi, she played a lot of Slams when she was very young: she didn't make it to the QF in her first eight, almost all of which she played before her 16th birthday. Starting with her first SF (US Open 1985, at age 16), she played 46 Slams from that point on, 37 of them SF or better (so 80.4%)...and her 1987-96 peak is probably better than anyone's best ten years, man or woman.

Graf is still my #1, especially in light of some of those stats that paint Serena in a slightly lesser light than I thought (and her Elo isn't as impressive as I thought). But the Evert stats make me re-think her a bit. I can't imagine ranking her above Martina and Serena, though.

 

[El Dude]

I couldn't resist. Here's a chart showing the "Big Five" (we'll include Seles here), with their Slam results aligned by age.

First of all, funny how dear @Fiero425 -- aka Captain Hyperbole (love you, Fiero) -- never gets on Martina about her being relatively mediocre for the last seven years -- " What a travesty!!!!!! She's a shadow of her former self!!!!!!" (add emoticons galore) -- not to mention her brief little comeback in the 2000s. Meaning, he doesn't extend the same "courtesy" he does to Roger (and probably Rafa, c. 2015-16).

More seriously, it is interesting how different their careers are, and how they mostly peaked at different times. Monica was by far the most accomplished through 1992, her age 18 season (she turned 19 later - I'm using July 1 as the age cut-off, like baseball...similar season midpoint). She peaked as a teenager...although for specific, tragic reasons.

Chris probably peaked in the 19-21 range, but had a very high plateau for a decade after. Martina was slow to build up and didn't really peak until the latter half of her 20s. Steffi also peaked in the 19-21 range, but then again at age 24-27.

Serena is all over the place. That early peak at age 20-21, but then again in her late 20s, then again in her mid-30s.

 

[Fiero425]

I couldn't resist. Here's a chart showing the "Big Five" (we'll include Seles here), with their Slam results aligned by age. View attachment 7371
First of all, funny how dear @Fiero425 -- aka Captain Hyperbole (love you, Fiero) -- never gets on Martina about her being relatively mediocre for the last seven years -- " What a travesty!!!!!! She's a shadow of her former self!!!!!!" (add emoticons galore) -- not to mention her brief little comeback in the 2000s. Meaning, he doesn't extend the same "courtesy" he does to Roger (and probably Rafa, c. 2015-16).

More seriously, it is interesting how different their careers are, and how they mostly peaked at different times. Monica was by far the most accomplished through 1992, her age 18 season (she turned 19 later - I'm using July 1 as the age cut-off, like baseball...similar season midpoint). She peaked as a teenager...although for specific, tragic reasons.

Chris probably peaked in the 19-21 range, but had a very high plateau for a decade after. Martina was slow to build up and didn't really peak until the latter half of her 20s. Steffi also peaked in the 19-21 range, but then again at age 24-27.

Serena is all over the place. That early peak at age 20-21, but then again in her late 20s, then again in her mid-30s.

What do you want me to say? Players develop at different rates; esp. when under the thumb of the USSR at the time! IDK why you guys do this! It just embarrasses you when I point out the oppression and what Eastern Europeans had to deal w/ back in the early pro days! I also think her playing doubles so much hurt her in some of those longer major finals! She literally sabotaged herself by overplaying!

 

[El Dude]

What do you want me to say? Players develop at different rates; esp. when under the thumb of the USSR at the time! IDK why you guys do this! It just embarrasses you when I point out the oppression and what Eastern Europeans had to deal w/ back in the early pro days! I also think her playing doubles so much hurt her in some of those longer major finals! She literally sabotaged herself by overplaying!

Martina lived in the US starting in 1975. And I wasn't talking about her first seven years, but her last.

I was mostly joking, but with a serious element. You've accused Roger and others of "embarrassing themselves" playing too long after they had started to decline, when Martina played her last seven years with just one Slam to show for it.

I'm not saying she shouldn't have...I think it is great that she played as long as she did, and as well as she did. I just don't know why--if you feel the same about Martina's declining years, you don't feel the same way about, say, Roger's.

 

[Fiero425]

Martina lived in the US starting in 1975. And I wasn't talking about her first seven years, but her last.

I was mostly joking, but with a serious element. You've accused Roger and others of "embarrassing themselves" playing too long after they had started to decline, when Martina played her last seven years with just one Slam to show for it.

I'm not saying she shouldn't have...I think it is great that she played as long as she did, and as well as she did. I just don't know why--if you feel the same about Martina's declining years, you don't feel the same way about, say, Roger's.

Martina was still the best doubles' player on the court; hence her wrapping up her BOX SET in 2003 when she took AO MxD w/ Paez closing in on 50! IMO I give more credit to players of Eastern block countries who had to deal w/ not being able to make their own choices! This has to carry w/ players into their adult lives! I guess that's what made Martina and Ivan Lendl special; conquered their oppressive upbringing, being w/o a country until becoming US citizens, and the favoritism of their opponents like Evert, McEnroe, & Connors!

 

[El Dude]

Martina was still the best doubles' player on the court; hence her wrapping up her BOX SET in 2003 when she took AO MxD w/ Paez closing in on 50! IMO I give more credit to players of Eastern block countries who had to deal w/ not being able to make their own choices! This has to carry w/ players into their adult lives! I guess that's what made Martina and Ivan Lendl special; conquered their oppressive upbringing, being w/o a country until becoming US citizens, and the favoritism of their opponents like Evert, McEnroe, & Connors!

Well I'll give you that...being raised in the Czechoslovakia of the 1950s-60s is quite different than the US. But...wealth is wealth, to some degree, and most tennis players were born and raised wealthy.

Anyhow, Martina was still a very good singles player until the end. The 90s had some really good female players - not just Graf and Seles, but Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Capriati, etc. She was holding her own, finishing #8 even in her last year. 1988-94 for her was pretty similar to Roger from 2014-21.

 

[El Dude]

By the way, did you read Jeff Sackmann's piece on Lendl? He was such a bad-ass. Imagine coming up when Borg and McEnroe were in their prime, and claw your way to being on par with them. he even surpassed McEnroe by about 1985. His trajectory is somewhat similar to Novak's, really.

 

[Fiero425]

Well I'll give you that...being raised in the Czechoslovakia of the 1950s-60s is quite different than the US. But...wealth is wealth, to some degree, and most tennis players were born and raised wealthy.

Anyhow, Martina was still a very good singles player until the end. The 90s had some really good female players - not just Graf and Seles, but Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Capriati, etc. She was holding her own, finishing #8 even in her last year. 1988-94 for her was pretty similar to Roger from 2014-21.

Martina had to overcome several waves of great players! Early on it was the established stars like BJK, Court, Wade, & Goolagong w/ a newbie in tow, Evert! For a while it was just Chris & Martina w/ the next wave of Czech players in Mandlikova, Sukova, & Novotna! Then along comes Graf, Sabatini, then Seles at the end of the 80's! It's a wonder Martina wasn't run off long before that last Wimbledon final in 1994, just 20 years after her debut against Evert in Akron! Her doubles play kept her relevant to the last! No one will ever come close to Navratilova's numbers! OTTH w/ 59 Major titles, 167 single chp., 177 in doubles, 7 YE #1's, a Box Set, & 2 CGS (6 majors in a row), & being the only player over 200 weeks at #1 in both singles (332 wks) and doubles!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Well I'll give you that...being raised in the Czechoslovakia of the 1950s-60s is quite different than the US. But...wealth is wealth, to some degree, and most tennis players were born and raised wealthy.

Anyhow, Martina was still a very good singles player until the end. The 90s had some really good female players - not just Graf and Seles, but Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Capriati, etc. She was holding her own, finishing #8 even in her last year. 1988-94 for her was pretty similar to Roger from 2014-21.

Roger was a shell of himself after 2019 Wimbledon, whether it be due to injuries or lackluster play. I'd consider Martina's 1994 to be similar to Roger's 2019 (both were still playing well that year and suffered the Wimbledon heartbreak). Roger's 2020-21 would be like if Martina decided to play in 1995-96 and was injured most of the time, and lackluster when she was on the court. For me, 1988-94 for Martina would be equivalent to Roger's 2013-19. Had Roger retired after 2019 Wimbledon, that would be the equivalent to Martina retiring after 1994 Wimbledon.

 

[El Dude]

Roger was a shell of himself after 2019 Wimbledon, whether it be due to injuries or lackluster play. I'd consider Martina's 1994 to be similar to Roger's 2019 (both were still playing well that year and suffered the Wimbledon heartbreak). Roger's 2020-21 would be like if Martina decided to play in 1995-96 and was injured most of the time, and lackluster when she was on the court. For me, 1988-94 for Martina would be equivalent to Roger's 2013-19. Had Roger retired after 2019 Wimbledon, that would be the equivalent to Martina retiring after 1994 Wimbledon.

Yes, that's a more granular view that I agree with.

 

[BTURNER]

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.

Fascinating. Just fascinating

 

[BTURNER]

Martina was still the best doubles' player on the court; hence her wrapping up her BOX SET in 2003 when she took AO MxD w/ Paez closing in on 50! IMO I give more credit to players of Eastern block countries who had to deal w/ not being able to make their own choices! This has to carry w/ players into their adult lives! I guess that's what made Martina and Ivan Lendl special; conquered their oppressive upbringing, being w/o a country until becoming US citizens, and the favoritism of their opponents like Evert, McEnroe, & Connors!

I think we eventually need that tough conversation about what kind of 'credit' to we give doubles in this debate. That is a long complicated topic. But I am not going near this pandora's box of figuring out how hard life was in your country, and how difficult was it to 'make your own choices' and drag that into this equation. Was it more difficult for Martina across an iron curtain, to 'make her own choices' than it was for Althea Gibson as a black woman in the states, or Goolagong growing up one of 7 kids to a sheep shearer? Can you compare the opressive impact on choice from Eastern European politics ,with having a chronically ill parent or spouse or an abuser or absentee parent?

No I just look at the record and assume players end up with their share of good luck and bad luck and hurdles in a given length career. If I am not coming near that discussion, I am staying a mile away from any debate on 'favoritism' and its impact.

 

[BTURNER]

Yeah, I was a bit surprised. That "SF+" record for Evert is truly amazing. Evidently she had a higher floor, or base level at Slams, than any player in history, male or female.

But to be fair to Steffi, she played a lot of Slams when she was very young: she didn't make it to the QF in her first eight, almost all of which she played before her 16th birthday. Starting with her first SF (US Open 1985, at age 16), she played 46 Slams from that point on, 37 of them SF or better (so 80.4%)...and her 1987-96 peak is probably better than anyone's best ten years, man or woman.

Graf is still my #1, especially in light of some of those stats that paint Serena in a slightly lesser light than I thought (and her Elo isn't as impressive as I thought). But the Evert stats make me re-think her a bit. I can't imagine ranking her above Martina and Serena, though.

I agree about Graf completely. She comes out smelling like a rose here. To be candid, its not Evert you should be 're-'evaluating', its Martina! Between the stats/analysis that I provided you, and the stats/analysis that you provided me, cumulatively, Martina ain't looking very impressive at the GOAT level at all in singles. Comparing Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf and Serena, Martina is incredibly lackluster. Her cream never rises to the top in any category. She is either at the bottom or second from the bottom almost all the time. I see a greater disparity between Martina and Chris than I expected for the same 18 slam wins. The only way Martina overtakes Evert is by weighing the scales with a hefty portion of Wimbledon bias or using their personal match-up dynamic. It simply cannot be done based on these stats.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Another reason why Navratilova is the greatest of all-time: Players back then didn't have the nutrition/full time cardio/conditioning/fitness teams they have today. It's amazing how Navratilova lasted more than 20 years on the WTA, when pretty much most of her contemporaries barely lasted ten. If we take this into consideration, Billie Jean King belongs in the discussion for GOAT, and possibly as high as #2 (behind Navratilova). [BJK also had a long career like Navratilova, but don't forget that she skipped the AO and FO during her early years.]

The more I think about it, Navratilova should be a clear #1, with the discussion for #2 being between BJK, Evert, and Graf. Serena benefitted from the nutrition/conditioning/fitness teams of today's tennis, which coincided with the dip in talent in women's tennis in about 2007. I truly believe that if Capriati was more talented than Serena, and if she had the nutrition/conditioning/fitness teams of today, she probably does not burn out and been unbeatable for a very long time. Seles is complicated because of the stabbing, but if she had the nutrition/conditioning/fitness teams of today after the stabbing, I see no reason why she doesn't get to at least 18-20 slams.

 

[BTURNER]

Another reason why Navratilova is the greatest of all-time: Players back then didn't have the nutrition/full time cardio/conditioning/fitness teams they have today. It's amazing how Navratilova lasted more than 20 years on the WTA, when pretty much most of her contemporaries barely lasted ten. If we take this into consideration, Billie Jean King belongs in the discussion for GOAT, and possibly as high as #2 (behind Navratilova). [BJK also had a long career like Navratilova, but don't forget that she skipped the AO and FO during her early years.]

The more I think about it, Navratilova should be a clear #1, with the discussion for #2 being between BJK, Evert, and Graf. Serena benefitted from the nutrition/conditioning/fitness teams of today's tennis, which coincided with the dip in talent in women's tennis in about 2007. I truly believe that if Capriati was more talented than Serena, and if she had the nutrition/conditioning/fitness teams of today, she probably does not burn out and been unbeatable for a very long time. Seles is complicated because of the stabbing, but if she had the nutrition/conditioning/fitness teams of today after the stabbing, I see no reason why she doesn't get to at least 18-20 slams.

Actually by that standard, we should confer GOAT standard on Dorthea Lambert Chambers who's career lasted just as long as Martina only with even less nutrition, cardio, conditioning and fitness in her knowledge base. She did not have a team. She did not have a series of 5 sequential coaches and a fitness coach. She did not have a coach at all.

 

[Fiero425]

Actually by that standard, we should confer GOAT standard on Dorthea Lambert Chambers who's career lasted just as long as Martina only with even less nutrition, cardio, conditioning and fitness in her knowledge base. She did not have a team. She did not have a series of 5 sequential coaches and a fitness coach. She did not have a coach at all.

No one will EVER come close to Martina's numbers after all's said and done! Her accomplishments can't be matched by man or woman! She probably would have won more if not for extending herself playing doubles! Like Federer, she had a late rejuvenation, defeating Graf and Seles on favorable surfaces & circumstances! I was never more proud of her beating Graf at the 1991 USO SF! She was burned out, getting overwhelmed by Seles, Graf, Sanchez-V, & Sabatini, but showed moments of brilliance! Djokovic is trying to match her on the men's side, but even his lone "up on her" will be in major single's titles! OTTH she ended her career w/ 167 singles, 177 doubles, 59 majors, a Martina-Slam (6 in a row), 7 YE #1's, 5 YE #1 dubs, 20 Wimbledons, & in the top 10 for 20 years!

 

[BTURNER]

No one will EVER come close to Martina's numbers after all's said and done! Her accomplishments can't be matched by man or woman! She probably would have won more if not for extending herself playing doubles! Like Federer, she had a late rejuvenation, defeating Graf and Seles on favorable surfaces & circumstances! I was never more proud of her beating Graf at the 1991 USO SF! She was burned out, getting overwhelmed by Seles, Graf, Sanchez-V, & Sabatini, but showed moments of brilliance! Djokovic is trying to match her on the men's side, but even his lone "up on her" will be in major single's titles! OTTH she ended her career w/ 167 singles, 177 doubles, 59 majors, a Martina-Slam (6 in a row), 7 YE #1's, 5 YE #1 dubs, 20 Wimbledons, & in the top 10 for 20 years!

My point is that is another side to those wins, and that is the losses she acrues along the way. If you acrue several embarrassing losses in the last 5 tournaments to get that extra late career win against Seles and another notch on her smaller tournament tally, its a calculation that warrants some thought, because the losses matter as much as the wins. They are part of the history books too, and those are losses that she alone owns, because she showed up and walked on court, full of convidence, and ready to win, before all of those matches. She deserves the slaps as well as the praise. She gets to be the 'Hostest With the Mostest' embarrassing late career losses too!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

My point is that is another side to those wins, and that is the losses she acrues along the way. If you acrue several embarrassing losses in the last 5 tournaments to get that extra late career win against Seles and another notch on her smaller tournament tally, its a calculation that warrants some thought, because the losses matter as much as the wins. They are part of the history books too, and those are losses that she alone owns, because she showed up and walked on court, full of convidence, and ready to win, before all of those matches. She deserves the slaps as well as the praise. She gets to be the 'Hostest With the Mostest' embarrassing late career losses too!

The losses are nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering that Navratilova was in her advanced age and that the competition in the WTA was at its greatest. Consider this:

--1992 was the year with the toughest competition on average, which Seles dominated
--Graf didn't really slump post 1990--her rating stays above 2500. Seles' peak was just higher than the level Graf achieved post 1990. Even Graf's 95/96 level wasn't better than peak Seles.

Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ween-all-time-great-and-greatest-of-all-time/

If anyone had an embarrassing loss, it's Steffi Graf, who in her prime lost to Lori McNeil in the 1992 Virginia Slims Championships and 1994 Wimbledon (although Steffi was kind of injured for that one). Navratilova never had a loss as embarrassing as McNeil, even in her late career. In fact, Navratilova defeated the McNeil that defeated Steffi in the 1992 Virginia Slims Championships.

As I've said before, had Navratilova closed the deal against Conchita and won 1994 Wimbledon as her lasting image, I feel like there would be no debate on who the GOAT is in women's tennis.

 

[BTURNER]

The losses are nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering that Navratilova was in her advanced age and that the competition in the WTA was at its greatest. Consider this:

--1992 was the year with the toughest competition on average, which Seles dominated
--Graf didn't really slump post 1990--her rating stays above 2500. Seles' peak was just higher than the level Graf achieved post 1990. Even Graf's 95/96 level wasn't better than peak Seles.

Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ween-all-time-great-and-greatest-of-all-time/

If anyone had an embarrassing loss, it's Steffi Graf, who in her prime lost to Lori McNeil in the 1992 Virginia Slims Championships and 1994 Wimbledon (although Steffi was kind of injured for that one). Navratilova never had a loss as embarrassing as McNeil, even in her late career. In fact, Navratilova defeated the McNeil that defeated Steffi in the 1992 Virginia Slims Championships.

As I've said before, had Navratilova closed the deal against Conchita and won 1994 Wimbledon as her lasting image, I feel like there would be no debate on who the GOAT is in women's tennis.

You clearly have no idea of the scope of the problem. Martina and Serena had problems with consistency far more years, than they didn't. Both 'late bloomers', both had some slumps mid career, and both hung around a long time after they won a major. Every champion including Evert, Court and Graf, has some embarrassing losses but its all about how many. I do not comment of 'tough eras' becaue I don't nessisarily believe in the concept. I believe eras have different strengths and weakness. I don't allow age to be much of an excuse in tennis, because players chose when they retired. They had complete control over that variable.

 

[dante1976]

It has to be Martina... longest dominance, bunch of trophy's singles/doubles, etc... etc... lots of numbers on her side BJK comes in strong second, Serena/Graf 3rd...

Sent from my SM-G970W using Tapatalk