RealGM

I've discussed the best men's tennis players with quite a few people, and I'm somewhat familiar with men's tennis history, and so I'm pretty comfortable with saying that the best men's player I've ever seen (Federer) is the best player ever and feel that I can defend that quite well.

But my knowledge of women's tennis history is not strong at all, and so I don't know if I can say that the best women's player that I've ever seen (Serena Williams) is the best ever.

So for people that know a lot more about tennis than I do, where does Serena rank all time as of right now?

As far as talent goes, I have no problem with anyone believing Serena is the best woman ever to step on a tennis court. Career and legacy wise, I don't think she's reached the upper echelon of Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert, or Margaret Court just yet (I'm counting just tennis. As far as legacies go, one could say Billie Jean King was the most influential). At 31, she's she's playing her best tennis and could currently dominate anyone on the court so when it's all said and done...MAYBE she breaks Graf's Open Grand Slams winners of 22 and MAYBE she goes after Court's total of 24. I wonder if she'll have the drive after her singles career to keep playing for those missing Mixed Doubles titles at the Australian Open, Roland Garros, and the Olympics to complete her boxed set.

On the day of Serena really making some huge history, it's the perfect time to revisit this. First, I'm going to quote myself from something I wrote on Quora in response to Serena's GOAT candidacy. Note the first part was written a good while ago.

Original January 2011:

Absolutely not. She simply hasn't dominated her sport on a consistent basis like a GOAT candidate needs to, despite playing in a disappointing decade as far as competition goes.

People seem to get confused and take Serena's inconsistency to be a compliment. Something like "She's so good, she wins even when she's out of shape. Only reason she doesn't win them all is because she has nothing more to prove." However, while it's conceivable that Serena might feel she has nothing to prove, it's not really a justifiable position.

Serena's only made the finals in 16 of the 43 majors she's played in. Bottom line is that most of the time when she plays, she doesn't dominate. This was never true of Graf, or Evert, or Navratilova.

Yes, maybe it would have been possible for Serena to dominate like those others did, but hers is not a career where she dominated for several years on end, and then just got bored and left. She's had career lasting over a decade, and other than one run of about 15 months in '02-03, she's never had an extended run where she looks unbeatable.

Addendum June 2013:

I'm not going to change my original text, but it's important to acknowledge what has happened in the past 2 and a half years. (Also, maybe people will be a little less upset if it's clear when I made my original statement.)

Serena, at an age where most are clearly past their prime, faced a serious injury and a life-threatening complication which resulted in missing nearly a year of tour time, and perhaps another year before she was back to her self, and then, boom, she's the best player in the world.

And yet, even that underestimates the scale of this comeback, because many will think that means she got back to her usual self. This is not her usual self. In the past 365 days, she's won 3 majors plus the Olympics and the one major she missed was one there's no doubt she could have won. This is a level of domination she's only done twice before, and both times she wasn't able to maintain it.

This inability to maintain, incidentally, is precisely why I've had such a vehement reaction to people championing Serena for GOAT status. For understandable reasons people have seen Serena as a GOAT candidate from the time when she was young, and the manner in which she fails allows people to downplay the scale of the failure relative to what GOAT women's tennis players have always been able to do before.

If she can maintain it though this time, it changes everything. For one, it would literally mean her 2-year (or however long it lasts) peak comes in her 30s after fighting extreme adversity. For another, obviously this would probably mean she surpasses Navratilova and Evert's career slam titles. Once she gets there, I would have to concede that Serena's a definite GOAT contender.

I still maintain that much of bandwagon surrounding Serena before was not only premature but wrongheaded given that there was no reason given her track record to expect her eventually reaching a GOAT set of career accomplishments. Sometimes however, facts change. What we are watching with Serena right now is quite possibly the single most important part of her legacy, and it is astonishing.

Okay so in terms of ranking?

I'm not ready to move Serena past the Big 3 (Graf, Navratilova, Evert), but she's now a solid #4 knocking on the door. If she were to, say, win the next 3 slams and hence complete a second Grand Slam, then she's really right in the conversation with anyone.

As is, I don't think there's any question she's the greatest talent we've ever seen, and that includes her fighting spirit.

Rich Rane wrote:As far as talent goes, I have no problem with anyone believing Serena is the best woman ever to step on a tennis court. Career and legacy wise, I don't think she's reached the upper echelon of Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert, or Margaret Court just yet (I'm counting just tennis. As far as legacies go, one could say Billie Jean King was the most influential). At 31, she's she's playing her best tennis and could currently dominate anyone on the court so when it's all said and done...MAYBE she breaks Graf's Open Grand Slams winners of 22 and MAYBE she goes after Court's total of 24. I wonder if she'll have the drive after her singles career to keep playing for those missing Mixed Doubles titles at the Australian Open, Roland Garros, and the Olympics to complete her boxed set.

ftr I don't take Court that seriously. I think people overrate the era-to-era improvements in talent for more recent periods, but Court had two really huge advantages she didn't eran:

1) She was Australian in an age where many non-Australians didn't bother to make the trip to the Australian Open.
2) She won many of her titles before the Open era and the rest soon after.

Now on #2, the women's game was effected differently than the men's in terms of this. Men's Grand Slam events were a joke because the best players weren't in them. Women's Grand Slam events didn't have the same problem, but the fact that most people aren't in a position to dedicate their lives to becoming their best at an amateur sport does mean that talent pool back then was far weaker. The flood gates opened when the next generation of kids showed up, with Chris Evert being that spearhead.

While I'm saying this though, I think it's worth it for everyone to take a look at Maureen Connolly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Connolly

This is a girl who basically was winning every major she played in from age 16 on before retiring a 19. This kind of domination isn't something that ever existed before or after (Court was on nowhere near that level). Had she played a long career winning 30+ majors, I'd probably put her in with Grant/Navratilova/Evert despite the era difference. She'd obviously have to adjust like crazy to become solid in the modern era, but it's very difficult to say what she definitely was NOT capable of.

Doctor MJ wrote:ftr I don't take Court that seriously. I think people overrate the era-to-era improvements in talent for more recent periods, but Court had two really huge advantages she didn't eran:

1) She was Australian in an age where many non-Australians didn't bother to make the trip to the Australian Open.
2) She won many of her titles before the Open era and the rest soon after.

Now on #2, the women's game was effected differently than the men's in terms of this. Men's Grand Slam events were a joke because the best players weren't in them. Women's Grand Slam events didn't have the same problem, but the fact that most people aren't in a position to dedicate their lives to becoming their best at an amateur sport does mean that talent pool back then was far weaker. The flood gates opened when the next generation of kids showed up, with Chris Evert being that spearhead.

I think Court's difficult to rank, but you might be being a tad unfair here.

At the same time as Court didn't "earn" the advantages you mention, it's also not her fault that she was Australian nor that her career spanned the time period it did. As you point out, the women's game

She won 11 of her 24 slams at the Australian. If you throw those out, she still won more than anyone else during that time period. If you're just looking at the slams, that leaves Court with "only" 5 French Opens/Championships, 5 U.S. Opens/Championships, and 3 Wimbledons. Not too shabby. If you then look at the way she dominated other events, her winning percentage and number of tournaments won are just phenomenal.

I think anyone who dominates their era to that extent deserves to be on a short list of greatest of all time candidates. When she did leave the game, it wasn't really because the next generation forced her out. It was due to raising a family (having missed a couple of seasons [1972 and 1974] due to pregnancy and childbirth).

While I'm saying this though, I think it's worth it for everyone to take a look at Maureen Connolly:

Here I agree with you. Little Mo is one of the biggest "what if" stories in tennis.

As for Serena, I don't think she's accomplished as much, career-wise, as Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court. I think she's as talented as any of them, and, at her best has been as dominant vs. her peers as they were vs. theirs. I think what shows in her fewer tournaments won (even allowing for differences in era) and weeks at #1 is that she hasn't been as week-in, week-out consistent as the aforementioned players were during their respective heydays.

With her power game, here physical strength, the way she moves around the court, also the best serve ever in women's tennis, I don't think Graf, Evert, Navratilova would stand a chance. Obviously, Serena isn't the most accomplished, but as a player she is the GOAT.

Talent wise I think she is the best ever. You want to hold it against her that she is a jerk and doesn't always give her all but she is developing quite a resume. Plus she took on some pretty big heavyweights early and midway in her career even if the later stages of her career is an embarrassingly weak era for tennis. Small asterick though b/c I still think healthy Monica might have made a big difference in the convo.

Pukovnik wrote:With her power game, here physical strength, the way she moves around the court, also the best serve ever in women's tennis, I don't think Graf, Evert, Navratilova would stand a chance. Obviously, Serena isn't the most accomplished, but as a player she is the GOAT.

The problem with this type of thinking is that if Sloane Stephens stands a chance, it's absurd to say Graf, Evert, and Navratilova don't. People have long had this tendency to essentially try to logically prove Serena is unbeatable while ignoring the fact that Serena's been maddeningly inconsistent her whole career, which is the reason why her actual career accolades are only starting to get in the league with the GOATs. If you're not factoring in how Serena is when she loses, then you're not doing a serious analysis.

UGA Hayes wrote:Talent wise I think she is the best ever. You want to hold it against her that she is a jerk and doesn't always give her all but she is developing quite a resume. Plus she took on some pretty big heavyweights early and midway in her career even if the later stages of her career is an embarrassingly weak era for tennis. Small asterick though b/c I still think healthy Monica might have made a big difference in the convo.

I want to hold her losses against her, that's all. If she wins enough, she'll be my GOAT.

I thought Navratilova was pretty physically dominant during her era and was far more accurate and consistent than Serena over the course of her career. Graf was probably not in the same league but she was very gifted and you could add an asterisk to her latter titles too since Seles was unfortunately not around. From my own dim memory of that rivalry during my childhood, Seles was dominant against Graf.

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:I thought Navratilova was pretty physically dominant during her era and was far more accurate and consistent than Serena over the course of her career. Graf was probably not in the same league but she was very gifted and you could add an asterisk to her latter titles too since Seles was unfortunately not around. From my own dim memory of that rivalry during my childhood, Seles was dominant against Graf.

I used to hold Seles much more against Graf but I've changed my mind.

First off, if you look at the rivalry, Seles doesn't actually have any clear advantage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf%E2%80%93Seles_rivalry

In Seles 2 peak years, Graf actually won 3 of the 4 matches. Quite literally, Seles took over the #1 spot not having to play Graf that much...because Graf was losing much more in that time period that she did before or after.

And before or after, Graf's consistent dominance in yearly records was significantly more dominant than anything we had seen from Seles at that time.

With that said:

1) Seles could have gotten BETTER given how young she was.

2) Anyone just citing Graf's 22 given this clear horrendous shift is silly.

To me Graf's top argument is her routine dominance for so many years.

The classic Calendar Grand Slam in 1988.
The "Serena Slam" of 1994-95.
The "3 Slam Sweep" she did in both 1995 & 1996 where she just skipped the Aussie twice. (Only Graf was so dominant that missing out on Grand Slams more than once due to not playing doesn't even seem to matter)
She had 8 years winning 90%+, and 4 winning 95%+.

That said, I still champion Seles. I don't like using longevity against Seles when making GOAT rankings, and if you go by the dominance she'd already shown, it's hard for me to rank her lower than 5th all time (behind Graf, Martina, Evert, and Serena).

Bumping this in the wake of today's win for Serena. She is now tied for 2nd place all time for GS titles at 18, with Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, and is 4 behind Steffi Graf.

It seemed that the last time this was discussed, Serena was considered a tad bit below the big 3 (Graf, Navratilova, Evert), but is she firmly within that group now?

I certainly think so, and her 2014 US Open run was one of the most dominant championship runs of all time...I mean, she never lost more than 3 games in any set throughout the tournament.

Serena vs. Graf would have been an AWESOME rivalry.



My favorite rivalry of Serena's career was Hingis vs. Serena (Serena leads 7-6), especially the 2001 Australian Open clash (Hingis won 8-6 in 3rd set).

As people bring the debate up because of the tie in major titles at 18, I think the very next thing to bring up to bring up is the effect of these top players on each other.

So for example, Chris Evert lost to Martina Navratilova 10 times in major finals. A somewhat naive, but not crazy approach to evaluating Evert vs Serena then would be to ask how each would have done if Martina wasn't born working under the assumption that if you lost in the finals to Martina, you would have won the title. And of course if we do that:

Chris Evert 28, Serena Williams 18

This then is essentially my issue with many pro-Serena arguments. The reality is that Serena played in an era without any top tier GOAT contenders, and hence that was a pretty major advantage unless you believe the competition today is so fierce to make up for that. (And you shouldn't, take Serena out of the mix, the combination of physical and mental weaknesses of this generation of women stands in stark contrast to either the top women of prior eras or the current men.)

The other major pro-Serena argument is essentially a "C'mon, watch Serena play, think anyone can beat here when she's on?", and the problem with that is that people combine that with the Grand Slam based longevity arguments. You want to say Serena's peak is the GOAT peak? Cool. The reality is that Serena should have won FAR more majors than she did - She should have been challenging the 28 majors Evert might have won in the absence of Navratilova - but she didn't because she could not maintain consistently year in and year out in the same way that basically all other GOAT candidates could.

So yeah, I still don't rank Serena as high as the "Big 3", for these reasons. She'll have to keep winning to pass them up.

Last note: I do like that Serena has won a lot in doubles. There's a part of me that would love to make my GOAT based on a combination of singles & doubles. I refrain because players just don't view doubles that way in general. I wish they did, but they don't. As such while I don't factor doubles in to my GOAT list, if someone else did, I'd be fine with it.

Doctor MJ wrote:As people bring the debate up because of the tie in major titles at 18, I think the very next thing to bring up to bring up is the effect of these top players on each other.

So for example, Chris Evert lost to Martina Navratilova 10 times in major finals. A somewhat naive, but not crazy approach to evaluating Evert vs Serena then would be to ask how each would have done if Martina wasn't born working under the assumption that if you lost in the finals to Martina, you would have won the title. And of course if we do that:

Chris Evert 28, Serena Williams 18

This then is essentially my issue with many pro-Serena arguments. The reality is that Serena played in an era without any top tier GOAT contenders, and hence that was a pretty major advantage unless you believe the competition today is so fierce to make up for that. (And you shouldn't, take Serena out of the mix, the combination of physical and mental weaknesses of this generation of women stands in stark contrast to either the top women of prior eras or the current men.)

The other major pro-Serena argument is essentially a "C'mon, watch Serena play, think anyone can beat here when she's on?", and the problem with that is that people combine that with the Grand Slam based longevity arguments. You want to say Serena's peak is the GOAT peak? Cool. The reality is that Serena should have won FAR more majors than she did - She should have been challenging the 28 majors Evert might have won in the absence of Navratilova - but she didn't because she could not maintain consistently year in and year out in the same way that basically all other GOAT candidates could.

So yeah, I still don't rank Serena as high as the "Big 3", for these reasons. She'll have to keep winning to pass them up.

Last note: I do like that Serena has won a lot in doubles. There's a part of me that would love to make my GOAT based on a combination of singles & doubles. I refrain because players just don't view doubles that way in general. I wish they did, but they don't. As such while I don't factor doubles in to my GOAT list, if someone else did, I'd be fine with it.

I don't think that's a fair way to evaluate things at all, just because Evert and Navratilova played against each other. The thing with Serena's competition, there wasn't a single woman that constantly matched her over and over again, but there were plenty of contenders that kept coming up and rotating essentially. Players like her own sister (Venus), Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, etc. If we assume that none of them ever existed, then Serena wins a lot more titles as well.

There's also no way you can actually assume that Evert would have definitely won every time had she not faced Navratilova in the Finals.

BTW, you can use this exact same argument to prop up someone like Roddick. If it wasn't for his prime exactly coinciding with the GOAT's, he could have easily ended up with 6-7 titles instead of 1, and we could easily be talking about him as one of the greatest men's tennis players of all time.

Also, how is Graf ahead of Serena if we're going to examine competition like this? Graf took advantage of the fact that Navratilova and Evert were no longer in their prime when she started winning, and she really racked up the titles after Seles got hurt. Her competition was weaker than Serena's, and she really didn't win that much more.

You can talk about underachieving with regards to Serena all you want, but the fact of the matter is that she still won 18 GS titles...she's still easily capable of winning more...and injuries have certainly played a part in her not being able to consistently dominate...they mentioned it today: when she's actually played in all 4 major tournaments in a year, she's won at least 1 of them dating back to 2001.

I'd also add that you should be careful when evaluating competitive differences between two different eras, especially in an individual sport like tennis. I could easily say that Serena stands out from the rest of the competition, BECAUSE she makes them look unimpressive, not necessarily because they aren't great players. Who really knows how well Navratilova and Evert would have played against Sharapova, or Henin, or Clijsters, or V. Williams?

And I mean no disrespect by that either. But Henin especially was getting a lot of possible GOAT talk before she retired. As was a young Venus Williams.

I think its also safe to say that Serena herself stalled in her motivation to get better due to a genuine lack of competition at her standards and a real rivalry. The only good rivalries she had were with her sister for a short while and Henin.

the most competitive rivalry was Hingis vs. Serena, which Serena leads 7-6.
and Hingis leads Venus 11-10.

therealbig3 wrote:I don't think that's a fair way to evaluate things at all, just because Evert and Navratilova played against each other. The thing with Serena's competition, there wasn't a single woman that constantly matched her over and over again, but there were plenty of contenders that kept coming up and rotating essentially. Players like her own sister (Venus), Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, etc. If we assume that none of them ever existed, then Serena wins a lot more titles as well.

All of those players were far less dominant and far less capable of sustaining consistency than Navratilova was. If you want to say the talent bar was raised high enough to make up for that, okay, but short of that Serena not having to deal with a contemporary capable of consistently dominating other contemporaries was a massive advantage.

therealbig3 wrote:There's also no way you can actually assume that Evert would have definitely won every time had she not faced Navratilova in the Finals.

...and I said as much in my post.

therealbig3 wrote:BTW, you can use this exact same argument to prop up someone like Roddick. If it wasn't for his prime exactly coinciding with the GOAT's, he could have easily ended up with 6-7 titles instead of 1, and we could easily be talking about him as one of the greatest men's tennis players of all time.

The proper phrase is not "you can" but rather "you absolutely have to if you're doing this analysis properly", and you best believe I do this with Roddick and every other player. It's not something I made up with Serena, it's the only reasonable way to do things.

It's the equivalent of saying "you can't just count rings" in basketball.

therealbig3 wrote:Also, how is Graf ahead of Serena if we're going to examine competition like this? Graf took advantage of the fact that Navratilova and Evert were no longer in their prime when she started winning, and she really racked up the titles after Seles got hurt. Her competition was weaker than Serena's, and she really didn't win that much more.

Good. It's important to note that Graf has a similar thing going on. Where Graf has the advantage over Serena is in the fact that she was vastly more dominant over the course of extended periods, and really any career comparison gives Graf a big advantage.

Graf had one stretch where she won 9 of 10 majors and reached the finals in the 10th major, another stretch more than half a decade later where she won 7 majors in a row, and in between she had another calendar slam...which by itself is the equal of the greatest run Serena ever had as a tennis player.

And relating Graf to Navratilova/Evert, it's a great point worthy of debate. There was a time not long ago when I argued for Evert as the GOAT. What can't be denied though is that even after you normalize for Navratilova & Evert relative to each other, they didn't have the utter dominance over the rest of their competition the way Graf did, and I've come to conclude that that's something very important, because the level of play of the none outliers is much more stable and predictable, than comparisons between outliers.

Again, we can debate about talent pool and level of competition, but much of the arguments made for Serena come from people in awe of her sheer dominance without any consideration to how good her opponents actually looked when they played in their other matches. Hence, it's crucial to understand, that Serena falls short of someone like Graf in the career achievements simply because she's never been able to sustain her play the way "the Big 3" did as a matter of course.

It's a very serious weakness that may have cost her 10+ more major titles. It is possible for Serena to be the GOAT despite this? Yes, it's possible, but so often people refuse to really talk about what a massive weakness this is, preferring to talk as if Serena's titles came about in roughly the same way that other GOAT candidates did, just with more modern competition.

therealbig3 wrote:You can talk about underachieving with regards to Serena all you want, but the fact of the matter is that she still won 18 GS titles...she's still easily capable of winning more...and injuries have certainly played a part in her not being able to consistently dominate...they mentioned it today: when she's actually played in all 4 major tournaments in a year, she's won at least 1 of them dating back to 2001.

18 is a lot, and certainly she's one of "the Big 4", but if you step beyond major titles, to finals and semis, you see even more how severe here inconsistency has been (and I'll throw a couple others in there for good measure):



Now, if your first thought is: "See, by your reasoning Graf doesn't deserve to be ahead of Navratilova & Evert either", I don't blame you, and frankly I think they have a great case over Graf.

Graf simply also has a case, and it's based on her ability to dominate through long stretches, and also with the recognition that she'd surpassed Graf & Navratilova's major totals at the age of 26...the same age Marin Cilic is about to turn this month. Sure she got injured after that, but there's also the matter that when you blow by a goal number, how much motivation is there after that?

As you mention, one of the most remarkable thing about Serena is her longevity, and that's great, but I'd challenge you to think about this in basketball terms to some degree. Is X titles in 15 years really as impressive as X titles in 9?..particularly when the X titles in 15 comes with less 2nd & 3rd place finishes?

I still think Serena has a shot at GOAT if she keeps going long enough, but it's really quite clear to me that for most her current GOAT candidacy is based primarily on the assumption that 18 slams today must be considerably more impressive than 18 slams (or 22) a decade or two ago, and while I get the general thinking behind this, it doesn't hod up in this case.

Circling back, look at the men there.

Do you see how Federer's finals & semis totals dwarf both Serena and Sampras?
Now recall what I said about adjusting for outlier competition. Federer in an extremely difficult era, where Serena & Samprass - in their respective sub-sports - did not. Yet he still dwarfs them.

Now, on this board, people probably think of me as a Federer homer, but just so we're clear, my advocacy of Federer, and my skepticism of Serena, come from this particular perspective.

Serena just left so, so much on the table compared to what we know can be accomplished in the women's game.