10 Greatest Female Tennis Players of the Open Era

[westfaner]

@sarasmilepiano..Sorry it was 11-3 on Clay vs Martina ( missed 2), but again the point being that still leaves 26 victories and that is hardly the bulk of her victories, and yes 8 of these matches were in the latter part of their rivalry. The bulk of their rivalry was played on indoor carpet (35) which was Martina's speciality. 16 times on cement and 15 times on grass. 14 on clay ..so the rivalry hardly favored Chris in anyway.

[zedlacredit]

@westfaner Very interesting... do you know what the stats are for their indoor meetings ?

[westfaner]

@zedlacredit 21-14 for Martina.. so almost half of her 43 wins over Chris came on an indoor carpet ...

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano I agree that Chris was probably the most mentally tough of all the great champions. She's also very influential in terms of setting a template for consistent baseline play and double-handed backhand (more so than Martina). She was strongest on clay but she played incredibly well on all surfaces, including grass where her career winning percentage is second only to Navratilova and well above Graf's interestingly. A contender for GOAT certainly but not my choice.

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 I like Chrissy and if it had not been for Martina and Steffi playing in her era, she would almost be certainly the GOAT.

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano I guess Court's record speaks for itself but 11 of her slams were won at the AO when it wasn't a truly international field. For that reason, I think she comes a close third. Evert was amazingly consistent (though her career winning % is slightly lower than Court's) but perhaps lacks the total dominance of either Graf or Navratilova in their primes. She has losing records against Navratilova, Graf and Austin too. So, yes, she gets the consolation prize!

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano men's game, where the discussion is not so black and white (or roger this and roger that). Chrissy definitely gets her due, but her downfall actually does not lie her stats- she holds some amazing records like 125 consecutive wins on clay and 34 GS finals. Its that her game style and stature would be a liability in the modern game, or simply put, she wouldn't have the same success today. But, then again, who knows- she would probably still do very well on clay.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano And that should be the true measure of GOAT- talent, ability, the intangibles that separate these players from everyone else. And both of these women had it in spades.

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 I do concur 100% that Martina's GS boxed set achievement is outstanding and underlies her dominance and excellence at all facets of the game. But doubles lacks the exposure that singles enjoys, and thus often fails to attract the "top players" to participate. This is especially true for mixed doubles, where often teaming up with a "doubles specialist" with increase your chances significantly. Case in point: See Bryan, Nestor, Paes, Bhupathi, Zimonjic.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano MN win % over her premier years was 97%, edging Graf's best. As to the '91 match- an amazing one at that- it was very close. Full credit to Martina as she played flawless, but that one encounter alone shouldn't be definitive proof that one player is absolutely "better" than another. Tennis is a game of ups and downs and that day was Martina's. And Martina was still a very capable player, even at 34- she was still in the top 5.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano One could consider this analogy from the men's game- Rafa has defeated Roger at the French Open and at other hard court events during his prime years, but does not make him "better" than Roger- not necessarily, according to many critics. It is also should be taken into account that Martina's prime years (26-30) differed from Steffi's (18-21), but Martina was an unusual player in that right, peaking much later than "normal".

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano I'm not arguing for Martina's place above Graf based on the '91 USO win alone (though it is remarkable) or their H2H but on her whole career: the fact that she combines unparalleled dominance in her prime and remarkable longevity over 21+ years, reflected in a record number of singles titles (70 more than Graf). Forget the doubles if you like, just on singles alone Martina edges it. That's why Tennis World and Tennis Magazine both rate Martina as GOAT.

[Nicklas4500]

@Nicklas4500 Sorry, my mistake, that's 60 more titles that Martina won (not 70!)

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 GOAT arguments are extremely subjective, and while they are intended to stir intellectual debate, there will always be bias- those who grew up watching with Martina will tend to side with her, and Steffi's fans will stick by their woman. Numbers tell a lot here- for instance, both were very dominant in their playing days, and the h2h shows that they were evenly matched. But they don't tell the whole story...

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 If longevity is the number one determinant for the GOAT, that would secure Martina as the best ever.There are so many other variables mixed into the equation, like if an athlete is able to stay injury-free, motivation, personal issues. Excellence is excellence, whether it is over a 5, 10, or 20 yr span. Also, Martina's game, being serve-and-volley, fit into the doubles mold very well, and she could benefit from this- much more than Steffi, hence the doubles disparity.

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano I wouldn't say that longevity is the number one determinant for GOAT but it has to be a factor, surely. Sustained excellence is more impressive than a flash in the pan? Martina is the only player to be ranked in the top 5 over 19 years. That means her game stood the test of time and matched up to different generations of players.

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 I would say longevity counts to a point and that is there should be a minimum standard that applies, but that number is a little arbitrary. My take is that it should be about 10 yrs to truly assess a person's ability and achievements, but of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Assuming someone turned pro at 18, seeing how well they would do in their late 20's or early 30's would be a good indicator of their skill set development.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano Incidentally, Martina is one of only women to play 20+ yrs. She is definitely proof that one could have a long career and find success in the latter stages. Keep in mind when comparing Martina and Steffi, or whoever for that matter, this fact: Martina has played a lot more matches than anyone. This would translate into more chances to win (and lose), and many opportunities to improve their skills. Yes, you heard me- get better over time.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano The fact is Martina has played more than 646 competitive matches than Steffi. That's like 8-10 yrs more. And I'm not counting the doubles! It is my personal opinion that if Steffi played as much as Martina, and if she was injury-free and motivated, the numbers would clearly show that Graf was No.1 by a long shot. Indeed, this is just speculation but everybody loves to do it.

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano I'd agree that if Steffi had played injury free for 8-10 years more then her win record would almost certainly have eclipsed Martina's. But she didn't! Injury is part of the game - to some extent reflecting style of play and stress on the body - so not sure you can argue very far in that "what if" direction. Surely the physical and mental ability to play at a high level over a long period of time is part of the make-up of a champion...

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 Fair enough.It is easy to state that this player could of done that or this without knowing his or her life circumstances.To some, life is not all about tennis, and there is a "moving-on" period. I do not fault (no pun intended) anybody walking away from the game if they are not passionate about it anymore. In a strange way, it is almost better to have success later on than earlier, so you can appreciate it more and not "burn" out. Steffi was great, and so was Martina.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano There are several minor and maybe obvious points that I missed, and upon reflection is relevant to this discussion. One being that Steffi, when nearing the twilight of here career, like many women around 30 had thoughts of starting a family and that may have been a deciding factor in her relatively early retirement. Martina, on the contrary, had no such intentions and had the luxury to extend her career as long as possible.

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 Personally, it would have been fascinating to see a long-standing rivalry between Steffi and Serena in the 2000s. Two GOATs battling it out, though Serena might have been a little too much entering her prime. Again, one player, not often mentioned because of her shortened career that is legitimately a contender based on ability and skills, and not on numbers alone.

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano Serena at her best would be tough for anyone to beat certainly. Not sure that even Steffi or Martina could match her speed and power. She could have been GOAT with more consistency. The other player I'd love to have seen enjoy a full career would be Monica Seles, the stabbing was a tragedy.

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 Undoubtedly Serena would have a power advantage, particularly on the serve. That shot alone would make her extremely tough as she would be almost unbreakable at times. The speed factor is pretty even, although stamina-wise Martina might have the edge here. Monica Seles should have a big asterisk beside her career, as it really ended with the 1993 incident. Up until then, Monica brought a unorthodox, powerful game that was on track to beat smash many records.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano Not really a fan of the Seles's style of play, but will admit it was very effective against some of the game's best. The only drawback- and this was evident later on with Monica- is that this type of play of having two hands on both sides requires supreme fitness and stamina; one would have to do a lot more running. To keep this up throughout the later years have been hard to do. Alas, another "What-If" case.

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano I think you are stretching a point re: getting better over time! Yes, of course you can hone skills and benefit from experience (which Martina clearly did in her mid to late twenties) but tennis is a young person's sport and really every player's best days are behind them once they hit their thirties....

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 Maybe so, but I think it applies to Martina here. Not only was she getting the benefit from singles match play, but doubles as well. Tennis may be a young person sport but there are always exceptions to the rule- and that was Martina.

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano Mainly Martina's commitment to supreme fitness is what vaulted her to the pinnacle of the women's game. She was fittest player on the WTA and that really was her biggest advantage over everyone else. No one was able to match her level for a long time. Coincidentally, Lendl adopted a similar training schedule around that propelled him to the No.1 spot.

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano I checked the WTA tour records and in their respective best 5 years, Graf's win/loss record was 352/14 matches and Navratilova's win/loss record was 427/14. As you say, that's not a lot in percentage terms but it's a difference of 75 wins, which is significant. Remember also, Martina holds the record for consecutive slams (6) and consecutive match wins (74), underlining her peak dominance.

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 Cherry-picking stats can be misleading and there some things not quite right here. First, Martina played a lot more than Steffi, so when you refer to the 75 wins, it distorts the fact that Steffi did not play those 75 matches, and did not have the opportunity to "win them". As to the consecutive slams, technically Steffi did win "6 in a row", that is, the French-US Open back-to-back in 95-96. She did not officially enter the Australian open due to injury

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano So again, it is one of those "what if" deals.I prefer to deal with percentages as it is a more accurate way assessing a player's effectiveness on court. But based on All-surface singles career winning percentage (official WTA tour events) the order will look like this: Margaret Court 91.37, Chris Evert 90.05, Steffi Graf 88.69, Martina Navratilova 86.82. So there is no clear answer when you solely base it on the numbers

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano Not cherry-picking, just picking up on the stats that you posted and looking at what a 1 percentage point difference means in terms of actual matches won/lost. Yes, Martina played more matches but by the same token she had more opportunities to lose - and just 3 losses in those 75 matches would have put her below Graf in percentage terms. No record books count Graf as winning 6 consecutive slams, only Connolly, Court and Navratilova have done that.

[sarasmilepiano]

@Nicklas4500 My initial post pointed out that the h2h for both players were even, despite someone making the claim that it was flawed due to the age difference. One could post favorable or biased stats for either player if they selectively chose stats. My key point here is that Steffi had the talent and ability to match any player in the world in any era, regardless of the records. And 6 consecutive Slams stat in my opinion is not a significant enough to set the "other greats"

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano from Steffi. Btw, this debate is fascinating and I am enjoying it.

[Nicklas4500]

@sarasmilepiano Absolutely, Steffi would be GOAT contender in any era and may well be based on number of slam wins on all surfaces, golden grand slam, time at #1 etc etc. I'm just enjoying the debate really and pointing up some facts & figures in support of Martina!  Both are superb champions.

[zedlacredit]

Not to jump on the bandwagon but Margaret Court's is listed by you as hard court specialist. Well she won most of her titles on grass. She won 14 of her singles slams before the open era, and all slams but the French were played on grass unitl 1975, when the US open changed, and the Australian didn't change til 1988.You also mention Graf made 29 slam finals, both Chris and Martina made more. Martina played until 94, Chris won 4 wta finals. 13 consectuive years winning a Grand Slam.

[shottut]

Billie Jean was year - end no 1 , 5 times, yes she did get a vote from Bud Collins in 1974, but all remaining 6 votes went to Chris, she was offically ranked as the year-end no. 1 in 1974. And was 7 times year-end no. 1.

[westfaner]

It is funny that you highlighted Margaret Courts 11 Australian Opens, and then your list is supposedly 10 best players of the Open Era ??? I would put Margaret below Chris because her Australian victory's were basically regional championships; and half of her career was not in the Open Era.

[karrtt1234]

Sorry to inform you that Steffi was 7 yrs the year end number 1, not 8 she was WTA pick for year end number 1, 8 times, but she wasn't ranked world number 1, 8 times. She shares the being ranked 7 times year-end number one with Chris Evert.

[saar144]

in navratilova's info, what exactly do u mean by *2* career grand slams? if u mean she won each GS at least twice, then so did evert, and her info only mentions a career grand slam.

btw, u should put in graf's info the fact that she spent the most weeks ranked #1 (377), more than any other male or female player.

[newipad]

Pretty accurate except that I'd place Navratilova certainly, and possibly Little Mo ahead of Steffi Graf.

[sarasmilepiano]

@newipad Martina and Steffi are very evenly matched in terms of accomplishments in singles play. They were 9-9 head to head and very close in career record singles percentage: 88.7% (Steffi) vs 86.8% (Martina). So you argue for either one to be at the top spot. But if you add Martina's doubles prowess, Martina would be the clear #1.

[newipad]

@sarasmilepiano Actually Steffi and Martina's encounters with each other were evenly divided DESPITE Martina being more than 12 years Steffi's senior. Steffi is an awesome player, but considering Martina's performance against Steffi and Martina's outstanding performance in doubles, Martina seems the clear #1. The title doesn't say "Outstanding Female SINGLES Tennis Players of the Open Era," it says "Outstanding Female Tennis Players of the Open Era."

[sarasmilepiano]

@newipad As to the "Outstanding Tennis Players" reference, while you are technically correct in saying that the title does not specifically underlie singles play, it is important to note the following points: Doubles is often not held to equal regard to that of singles, so many players opt to focus on singles and thus not concentrate on doubles. So generally, when people talk about the greatest of all time, accomplishment doubles is often not considered a major factor in one's tennis career

[sarasmilepiano]

@sarasmilepiano This can be illustrated more clearly on the men's side than women's. Case in point: Johnny Mac, who was both very accomplished in singles and doubles, would not be viewed as "one of the best" solely based on his doubles achievements. The fact that he won 7 slams, was No.1 in the world, and had one of the best seasons ever, have critics regarding him as an "all time great", with or without his doubles play.

[Pundit2k]

@sarasmilepiano Actually, it does say singles in the description.

[JuliaErzanne]

Hingis is the best...

[isselman2000]

@JuliaErzanne I'm a big fan of Hingis too.