While both remarkable champions I don't have to think twice about Graf being a better player than Evert was. Graf's position in tennis history should be above Evert. Thats not difficult at all.

I have to confess that I have never understood the argument that Steffi's career is so competitive with Chris and Martina. When people toss out simple statements like "Steffi is clearly ahead of Chris in terms of best ever", I have to attribute it to personal opinion rather than hard facts. Which is totally fine, but just recognize it is opinion only.

Steffi played on the tour for 17 years, Chris for 19, and Martina for 21. (Will future players ever last for these extended stretches? Not sure they will.) When you look at the hard data from their careers, it is clear that Chris and Martina not only contributed more to the game, but are actually more accomplished than Steffi as well.

The one category that Steffi wins in is Grand Slam singles titles. Four more than the other two. But she did not have to share her Slam opportunities with another player who is a greatest of all time candidate. Chris and Martina split up their 36 titles over the exact same stretch. Other than Martina's 1990 Wimbledon title, they won all their Slams with each other in the game. Steffi won most of hers against a multitude of good, but not great players. She did win five Slams against Martina and Monica. Seventeen others against the likes of Mary Joe Fernandez, Jana Novatna, and Helena Sukova. None of whom are even in the top 10 or 20 of all time.

In terms of consistency, Steffi comes closest to Chris, but falls short. Chris won Slams 13 years in a row, and Steffi won 10 years in a row. I think the two of them have the most balanced Grand Slam records of all time. (Amazing accomplishments for both.) Chris had her 125 match clay win streak and one of the top season win streaks in the game.

Match records: Chris finished her career at a 1304-144 clip. Steffi finished at a 900-115 clip. That gives Chris 404 more wins with only 29 more losses. Over the course of Steffi's 17 years, she would have had to win 25 more matches a season to tie Chris. That is significant.

Chris won 154 tournament titles, to Steffi's 107. Steffi would have had to win an average of 3 more tournaments a year.

Chris has won more matches than anyone at the French and US Open, and is in the top 2 or 3 at Wimbledon. She made it to the finals of every Australian Open she played. (Chris played in Melbourne a total of 6 times, winning 2 and being runner-up 4 times.)

Chris played against ALL the greatest Open players of all time. Court, King, Goolagong, Navratilova, Austin, Graf, etc. Steffi played near the end of Chris/Martina and the beginning of the Hingis/Davenport/Williams era. You just cannot say that Arantxa, Conchita, and Jana had the same capabilities as the players that Chris (and Martina) beat day in/day out.

In the end, Chris had losing records against only two players -- Martina (37-43) and Steffi (6-7). Steffi had losing records against four players, and none of them were really at the very top of the game. Nearly a full 1/3 of Chris' career match losses were to one player -- Martina. How much more bloated would her stats be if Martina had not been the player that she was. Steffi's career record in terms of losses was more evenly distributed across a larger number of players.

This is just the pure stats view of the world. When you factor in the other contributions to the game, Steffi falls further behind. She never was a leader on the tour, her camp was more interested in appearance fees and collecting real estate than contributing to the tour, and she "punished" tournaments that did not meet her father's demands by not playing there. Behaviors that would never be attributed to Chris and Martina, who played anywhere around the world they were needed to promote the game.

Steffi was an amazing player, but her career does not have the same level of accomplishment as the other two women at the top.

Hey Charlie....excellent write-up. This is all about opinion anyway, so everyone's entitled to his own. But I also think Chris' career accomplishments put her ahead of Steffi. I find the comparison over eras to be fascinating, but, ultimately, not really possible. And because the style of game changed, due to the ever increasing emphasis on training, thanks to Martina, and to technology, Lendl and others, including Steffi, learned how to play with those rackets in a way that changed the game, it's hard to judge careers of players from different eras. The best way is to look at them compared to their peers within their own era. Keeps things interesting.

Right on ,Charlie, well said but I also think Chris had a losing record to Tracy Austin, 8-9, if I'm not mistaken! Still, that does not detract from all you said!

wow, charlie... you've given the best account i've ever read anywhere for justifying chris over steffi. compelling - and you've convinced me, that's for sure.

Well, just to keep the argument going, I don't think the statistics are as clear cut as you suggest. First of all, aggregate W-L records and tournament records can be deceptive because not all tournaments are created equal. I was startled by your numbers on Chris, because they sounded wrong and I'd looked up tenniscorner on her a few days ago. It turned out that Tenniscorner doesn't include non-slam results prior to 1977, so using your W-L as a starting point I determined her won-loss record in other tournaments up to '76.

Evert's record before 1977
In slams: 94-14 (.870)
Other tournaments: 380-26 (.936)

Evert's record after 1977
In slams: 205-23 (.899)
Other Tournaments: 625-81 (.885)

Graf's Record:
In slams: 278-32 (.897)
In other tournaments: 624-83 (.883)

That breakdown makes me wonder whether those tournaments typically drew as strong a field as later WTA events. I think it's fair to say that far fewer tournaments had a global draw in the early 70's. Also, recall that there were two competing professional circuits for a couple of years. In the tournaments which I am most confident drew strong fields every year (the slams), Graf's W-L percentage was actually slightly higher than Evert's (.897 to .890).
She also played fewer majors than evert, winning an amazing 22 of the 54 majors she played, over 40%. Evert won 18 of 56, 32%.

As to the quality of her opponents: I looked up the runner up in all the events they played and divided them into semi-objective groupings.

Wins over all-time greats:
Evert: 7 - Martina Navratilova (4), Yvonne Goolagong (3)
Graf: 8 - Martina Navratilova (4), Monica Seles (3), Chris Evert (1)

Wins over 2nd rank Hall of famers:
Evert: 3 - Hana Mandlikova (3)
Graf: 6 - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (5), Matina Hingis (1)

Wins over lesser players (some HOFers included):
Evert: 8 - Olga Morozova (2), Wendy Turnbull (2), Virginia Ruzici, Mima Jausovec, Pam Shriver, Helena Sukova
Graf: 8 - Gabriela Sabatini (2), Mary Joe Fernandez (2), Helena Sukova (2), Natasha Zvereva, Jana Novotna

Looking over this list, I don't think the victims list for Evert's 18 majors is more impressive.

I don't think Graf is such a statistical mismatch. If consistency at a high level were all that matter, sure, Evert would have the edge. But we've both conceded Martina N. the #1 spot, and she had poorer aggregate statistics than either Graf or Evert. You also need to look at how dominant the player was at their peak. Graf made 13 consecutive grand slam finals, winning nine of them from '87-'90.
She won a calendar year grand slam in '88 and won four consecutive slams in '93-94. In '95 and '96, she won all six majors she entered. Her best years were much more impressive than those of Chris. Even though Chris usually only played two or three majors a year, she never won all the majors she played, something Graf did three times.

The standard complaint against Graf's big years is that they were in the fading years of Martina N. and the Monica Seles-free years. Evert had a similar window of opportunity, though. From 1975 to 1978, Court was gone and Billy Jean was fading, Martina was out-of-shape and Tracy Austin was just emerging. However, even in that relatively weak field, Evert never dominated the game the way Graf did in her best years.

The other standard complaint against Graf is that she was eclipsed by Seles. Evert, however, was not only surpassed by Navratilova once she got serious about fitness, she was also dominated by Tracy Austin from '79 to '81.

oh boy...i think gaga4gaby is going to have a problem with sabatini listed as an 'other lesser player.'

I have to agree with your breakdown, though. I know Chris was great, and she certainly deserves to be in the top 4, but I really don't see the comparison between her and Steffi. Steffi's number of grand slam titles exceeds Evert's. Add to that Graf's Golden Slam in '88 and the fact that she was perhaps the most dominant player on ALL surfaces, and she's clearly on top.

Amen.

I must confess that I don't know very much about the history of the game ... However, in the "How Important are the Slams" thread ... the consensus seems to be that Slams are what defines a career. Steffi has more Slams and you can't really control who you face in a slam ... your draw is your draw and Steffi came on top the most.

A slight side note ... I like the discussion in theory, but we are truly comparing apples to bananas. Completely different eras and frankly, statistics can be "manipulated" to prove any point one wishes to prove. The technology was much different, the styles of play were different ... *shrug*, I just don't see the point of the discussion ... especially since both sides obviously have strong opinions and it could easily turn into a pissing contest of who can use statistics to push their "agenda." (Poor wording, but I think that my point is getting across.) Of course, your mileage may vary.

Nick

This is my 2000th post, goodness. And I just wanted it to be in a tennis thread so I could affirm my fondness for Monica. I hope she comes back, strong, and has a Lindsay-like run. And why not? So, lifting a drink, here's to Monica.

Not really. I mean, she is a lesser player in terms of career success when you're talking about such a high level of elite player. My love is not blind. She's my favorite, yes, but I can be objective about it. Sometimes wink

I would like to point out that the only top player whose career arc can really be listed as contemporary to all three of these women in their prime - Evert, Graf, and Navratilova - is Gabriela Sabatini. Gaby turned pro made her first Slam semi in 1985, when Evert was still dominating the French (Sabatini lost to eventual champ Chrissie at the French in '85 and '86) and Navratilova/Evert were still very much the top two players in the world. Then Graf began winning Slams in 1987 and never looked back. Throw in Monica Seles in 1990 and it's no wonder Gaby couldn't catch a break at the majors.

for those in the US: has the latest issue with the final 4 come out yet? any news on how they've listed the players?

They will reveal the final four in November's issue, so it'll be another week or so before the players are announced.

Well the final 4 has just been announced and they are:

Drum roll please!


4. Evert
3. Graf
2. Navratilova
1. Sampras

I must say I'm suprised to see Sampras top the list. I thought that Navratilova was a shoo in for the top spot. She not only had incredible on court accomplishments, but she really ushered in a new level of fitness and athleticism to the game. She also had an incredible cultural impact. She was so bold about who she was and never hid from it, even if it meant taking a hit in her bank account. I personally would have flipped the top two spots, but I guess that's the beauty of lists like this, it inspires debate like the ones we've had on this board.

[ October 22, 2005, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Puddy ]

I don't agree at all, sorry!

I would put Martina first, Steffi second, Sampras third and leave Chris 4th.

Although clay wasn't Martina's surface, she still won the French twice and was a runner-up 4 other times I believe, and she won so many doubles! Steffi won so many titles on all surfaces! Sampras had one semifinal appearance at the French.

I'm sorry to those who think he was an all-around player but he wasn't, not like Steffi and Martina.

But, that's why different people have different opinions!

Do it again in about 10 years and maybe Federer will be Number 1 or some women's player we haven't heard of yet!

Agree, I would have Navratilova on top and Sampras third behind Graf.It is outrageous to have Sampras on top when he did not win the worlds toughest tournament or even get close.

wow, i'm surprised as well. i thought the real contenders for 1 and 2 were graf and navratilova, and was ready for battle had they put graf first over navratilova. sampras best ever tennis player over the past forty years? a stellar career, by all means, but no french open and just a couple of tourneys on clay? compared to god knows how many tournaments, singles AND doubles, knotched up by navratilova and graf. i guess, unfortunately, what this says is that even professional sportswriters share the perception that there's men's tennis and then, regardless of how incredible the achievements might be, there's a second tier commonly referred to as women's tennis. and never the twain shall meet.

I don't believe it. Sampras over Navratilova? Even allowing for differences in the games, Martina exceeded Pete in longevity, titles, time at #1. And she was a complete player. Pete was not. Martina won numerous clay court events, in addition to the 2 French Opens (plus at least 4 runner-up finishes at the French), all while playing at the same time as Evert. And Martina won so many doubles titles as well.

As great a player as Pete was, don't get that choice to rank him greatest player of the Oen era.

Honestly, it is so hard for me to even fathom placing men and women on the same list together, as their comparison relatively is too difficult.

I actually have no qualms that Pete is the best player of the last 40 years, but his impact on the men's game is substantially less than the other 3 women's games and impact on the sport of tennis.

Although arguably I would say that individually, the female players were ranked relatively correctly to one another- so I give Navratilova a #1 over Steffi.... but only because of her longevity and contribution outside the game. Has Steffi been more involved in promoting tennis outside the game- I would have given her the #1.

Looks almost like Navratilova, Graf and Evert split the "women's vote," letting Sampras waltz in at 1st. Maybe the magazine's "logic" was that Sampras was clearly the dominant male of the Open era, whereas there was no clear choice for the women. Also, Navratilova's courage and honesty doesn't resonate as much with some in middle America, as it does with us. (I would have ranked Navratilova #1).

I'm also surprised. For me, the two things that seperated Martina from every other player were a) her unsurpassed longevity; and the way she completely changed the women's game. Strength training and athleticism are required elements in the women's game today thanks to Martina, and even the men - in many sports in addition to tennis - have used other preparation methods that she pioneered. I don't think we'd see sports psychologists, nutritionists, etc. today if it weren't for Martina being the first to embrace those elements, as well as other unconventional training methods.

The part that upsets me about making Sampras the #1 player is that the magazine did not seem to follow the consistency of the process....

They seemed to use strictly the #s and objective content to make the decisions... now at the end, he is given homage to above three players who all had more objective success in their sport and 2 women who made significant changes off the court....

Objectively, if they went strictly by numbers and all around success, you would have to give the #1 to either Navratilova or Graf.....

Evert was equivalent at the French as Sampras was at Wimbledon....

Both Graf and Navratilova were successful at all surfaces... and I would give the edge to Graf because she simply won almost equally at all of the majors and won nearly 2 Grand Slams...

Oh well, greater things in life to bitch about, eh?

Agree with your comments. And just as a point, Evert won 5 majors on grass (3 Wimby, 2 Aussie), beating Martina, Evonne, BJK, and Margaret Court (the best grass court players of her time) in majors on grass. So she, like Martina and Steffi, was a champion on all surfaces, against the best players of her era.

While I actually agree that Sampras is the best male player of the open era, to ignore his inability to succeed on clay, or even to be a threat, and name him best player of the open era...there's something wrong with that picture. Especially when clay is such a significant part of tennis (whereas grass has diminished in importance to Wimbledon and a couple tune-ups out of the whole year).

If it was a vote, then the point that the women split the vote makes sense. And it is a beautiful day here, so just enjoying a chat, not stressing over it.

It's important to remember what a fine, fine line it is to draw between all four of these players. I certainly think a case could be made for Navratilova, Graf, and Sampras having the top spot and - as we've seen just in our conversation - plenty of people are able to make a solid case for Chrissie as well. I am glad, however, that I don't have to eat any shoes.

The lack of a French Open versus the three women who all own career Grand Slams resonates with me, so I agree that Sampras isn't the best choice for number one. I can see giving him some credit for being the male player and the greater depth/competition he overcame, but Martina should at least be ahead of Pete. At least in my book!

Well in defense of Pete, I'll say this. So many French champions on the men's side have been clay court specialists. And, historically speaking, there have been alot more dangerous clay court specialist floaters in the men's draw. It's much more rare for a woman to come out of nowhere and win the French, or any major for that matter. Most French titles on the women's side have been won by the top 4 seeds; not so on the men's side.

The women are more all court players. The surface is not nearly as big a factor as it is on the men's side.

That said, I'd still rank Martina #1 (doubles accomplishemnts tip the scales heavily in her favor IMO), Pete #2, then Steffi and Chris.

Well, that's too bad. Sort of undercuts the credibility of the list. Sampras was a great grass court player and a terrific hard court player. His game took a nosedive when it came to clay and you can't really say that about the rest of the top five or even top ten on any one surface. His contributions to the game have been limited besides being a quiet taciturn champion. His years at #1 are undoubtably impressive but the field on grass during those years was iffy (Agassi and Goran were both erratic during the second half of the 90's).
I would have put Sampras at #4. I'll have to read Tennis Magazine's explanation for any insight into this odd selection.

For me it's not just the lack of the French Open title...if he had proved himself on clay with a significant number of other titles, I wouldn't object so strongly to ranking him #1. But the fact is that his claycourt credentials are weaker than pretty much any man in the top 25, except maybe Boris Becker. Even Stefan Edberg and John McEnroe outperformed Pete on clay.

Good Hands, re your post Oct 23.
I was just about to correct you when you stated that Evert beat Court on grass. I thought this would have been rare for Court to have been beaten by a baseliner, which was certainly the case throughout her career. But I checked the records, and you are absolutely correct. Evert beat Court in a semi of the 1973 Wimbledon.

Interestingly, for an Australian who regard Wimbledon as the Holy Grail, Court has always said that her best career win,at age 31, was in fact over Evert, supreme on clay at the time, in the French final also in 1973.So then Evert wins on grass 6 weeks later, work that out!!!

Court suffered from nerves througout her career, particularly at Wimbledon where her record was not the best. I would of loved to have seen her play but she retired before I was born but I do have a large collection of tapes of matches of career.

Apart for Evonne Cawley we have not had a lot to cheer about in the womens game since.

These days my favourite player is the adorable Dally Randriantefy of Madagascar.

When it comes to Chris, my first sports crush, I usually know what I'm talking about. wink And the symmetry of those 2 matches is so fascinating. Evert, already really the best on clay, choking (her own words...it was her first major final, she felt she had the match, but she tightened up and Court didn't). Then, weeks later on grass, Evert's worst surface, and arguably Court's best, she beat Court in a tough, tight match to reach her first Wimbledon final. Even bigger because it was the only time that year that Court lost in a major.

That might have been the match when it became clear that Chris was not just a good, top player, but had what it takes to seize control of the game. Similar to Steffi against Martina at the US Open in '86.

Btw, did you know that Chris first announced herself in 1970, as a 15 y.o., beating Court in 3 sets in a tournament, the year Court won the Grand Slam? Back then a 15 y.o. playing was very rare, and for one to beat the #1 player in the world, not because Court had a bad day, but because Evert refused to lose....a player's character often shows even from early on.

I agree that this list seemed to go by the numbers until #4-#1. I don't understand Sampras being at the top either.

I love the man. In every sense of the word. Period. I wish he were gay, and available, and that he'd be even remotely interested in the likes of me. His game is probably one of the best in men's tennis, of all time. From his classic serve/volley tennis to his geltleman's strong, silent type, "gosh-golly-gee-wiz" shy little boy personality, I adore everything about him. But to put him ahead of Graf/Navritilova/Evert, who were better on clay (while still being great on the other surfaces) and have better numbers than him, when all others listed seemed to be purely numbers driven?

I'm having a hard time guessing at the reasoning. And all I can come up with, which has already been stated here, is that the women don't tend to have (or appear not to have) players who specialize on clay, and therefore they have a better chance of winning on clay. (???) Maybe??? Should this disqualify the surface THIS much in this list, though???

Or... Maybe they feel that the depth of women's tennis wasn't really there until recently??? Maybe they feel that when Martina N and Chris were dominating, there was really no one else other than just them (except for the very short-lived careers of Jaeger and Austin)??? Or that because Monica was stabbed, Graf didn't really have any other competition (other than Gabby, who had a tough time with her when she could make it to a slam final to play her, even though she did well against her otherwise) ??? Which would lead to my next wondering...If Seles hadn't been stabbed and the two of them had had the rivavlry we wish they would have, would they still have been ranked lower than Pete if one of them still wound up winning more than 14 slams like he did??? Or would this logic of "depth" still kept them below him because no one else really challenged them???

Sorry for the obnoxious amount of question marks, but I just really don't understand it, either. I still think combining the men and women in one list is a mistake, but it would be interesting to see how the list would hold up if seperated by gender.

So this is their top 10 for men and women from 1965-2005:

Women:

1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Court
5. BJ King
6. Seles
7. Serena
8. Hingis
9. Goolagong
10. Venus

Men:

1. Sampras
2. Borg
3. Connors
4. Laver
5. Lendl
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
8. Edberg
9. Wilander
10. Newcombe


I guess thats about right. There may be some dispute on a couple names being switched but overall I'd agree with both lists. Sampras and Navratilova should clearly be #1. I know Sampras never won the French and his overall clay success is mediocre but still...I would have to agree that he is the best.

The lists do look pretty spot-on when divided by gender, so that definitely speaks to the thought that TENNIS used in putting the list together. Interesting observation.

A friend of mine was talking about this over the weekend. He made a great point. Pete's accomplishments on the men's tour are always given more weight than Steffi/Martina/Chris. There is a perception that men's records have more weight. When the television announcers talk about "all time" records, they rarely talk about Chris and Martina (who hold almost all of them). They always bring up Pete, Jimmy, etc.

So, we decided Pete would be first. The women's order was up for grabs. It could have been any of the three in any order.

Some last points from other posts. We may not ever know how players from different eras would match up, but we certainly can compare them using statistics and observation. Most of them did play each other at some point or other. Chris dominated Steffi until the last couple years of her career when Steffi took off. There is usually overlap. Not a real stretch to do one-on-one comparisons.

For those talking about Martina's accomplishments on all surfaces. She made it to all of 6 French finals. Won it only twice. Chris played 15 Slam finals on grass, winning five. She won with equal ease on clay and hard. Other than Steffi (who really was capable of winning easily on all surfaces), Chris was the most capable of winning on all surfaces.

It was great to see Tennis magazine put this out over the course of the year. Look at all the great discussion it generated. Nice to see some positive threads (which is why I steer clear of other areas on the board).

BTW -- all of my stats came from the official WTA website. They have lots of great (and accurate) historical information.

Yeah, other than previously mentioned judgment of Evert over Graf, and even that is so close, the only one I'd maybe question is Hingis over Goolagong. In other words...I think the records have been pretty fairly judged for the Open era when divided by gender. Which is how they should have been anyway, imo. Top woman, Martina, top man, Pete.

(Edited to add....oh, except that I'd already put Federer on the list, even if just at #10 or above Wilander.)

[ October 25, 2005, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Good Hands ]

I also don't think they factored in off-the-court activities (i.e., contribution to the sport) or doubles into their decision-making. Had they I think King would have had to be Top 4 and Navratilova would have been given the #1. No one promoted tennis more than King and her doubles and mixed titles speak for themselves. Clearly Sampras' only contribution to the game has been on the court. Not meant as a criticism, just a fact.

Definitely made for interesting reading. Only way they could have made it better was to consult some of you guys!

The funny thing about this list is that given Federer's year, the list already needs to be revised.