Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Of Open era all time greats which had weakest competition overall - Talk Tennis

Which open era all time great female player do you believe had the weakest overall competion during her "reign".

Here are the players and their unofficial reigns during the Open era period: Chris Evert- 1974 to 1981 Martina Navratilova- 1982 to 1986 Steffi Graf- 1987 to 1990, 1993 to 1996 Monica Seles- 1991 to 1992 Serena Williams- 2002 to 2003, 2008 to 2009 Billie Jean King- 1968, 1972 Margaret Court- 1969 to 1970, 1973 Justine Henin- 2003 to 2007 Venus Williams- 2000 to 2001 My vote went to Navratilova as the field beyond Evert and Mandlikova (and a young pre-prime Graf in 1986) was hopeless IMO.

I would vote Serena if we were only talking about one segment of dominance as the 2008-2009 field is the worst in womens tennis history.

However since the 2002-2003 field was actually quite strong I vote for Navratilova as well.

Graf, since her main competitor was removed from the tour by brutal force.

Obviously Serena.

Atleast Martina had Evert, Mandlikova, and young Graf for a bit.

Serena has nobody, especialy the last couple years.

All 4 of Serena's slam titles in the last almost 5 years have come with Henin not even in the event either through missing it or being retired.

The pitiful fashion in which Serena won this year's AO is more than enough to secure my vote for her.

More than once, the player she faced could and should have beaten her;

She was playing terribly for most of the tournament.

Sure she was dominant in final (or just had to stand there while Safina self-destructed), but she wouldn't have been there in the first place if her some of her previous opponents (this means YOU Kuznetsova) hadn't fallen apart.

Quote: : The pitiful fashion in which Serena won this year's AO is more than enough to secure my vote for her.

More than once, the player she faced could and should have beaten her;

She was playing terribly for most of the tournament.

Sure she was dominant in final (or just had to stand there while Safina self-destructed), but she wouldn't have been there in the first place if her some of her previous opponents (this means YOU Kuznetsova) hadn't fallen apart.

And YOU Dementieva , and if Azarenka was not sick and if they didn't close the roof against Kuznetsova, ... Serena had a lots of going for her and was quite lucky to win this AO.

Most undeserving slam title I saw in a while.

I agree Serena was lucky in Australia but I dont think closing the roof made much difference in the Kuznetsova match.

Kuznetsova would have choked anyway, she pretty much always does in that situation.

Even with the roof closed she should have won, she served for a straight sets win and just fell apart.

I doubt that had anything to do with the roof being closed, it was just Kuznetsova being herself in a big match.

Quote: : And YOU Dementieva , and if Azarenka was not sick and if they didn't close the roof against Kuznetsova, ... Serena had a lots of going for her and was quite lucky to win this AO.

Most undeserving slam title I saw in a while.

Closing the roof didn't do Kuznetsova any favours that's for sure, but knowing her she would've found a way to lose even without that.

She absolutely should've won that match and I foolishly thought she would be able to keep it together.

Never again Kuzzy!

I'd have to go with Graf.

Seles was stabbed, Navratilova and Evert were getting old, Sabatini was okay but wasn't great and Sanchez-Vicario was also good but not great.

Don't get me wrong, I think Graf would be terrific in any era but I don't think the competition was great except for the years Seles was at her best.

I went with Navratilova.

As I said in another thread why should Navratilova who didnt even win her 3rd slam title until 25 be supposably "past her prime" at 31 and 32 just because Steffi is dominating her;

While Evert who began her dominance as a teenager is supposably in her prime from ages 27-31 during Martina's dominance from 82-86.

It is not just about age, it is about mileage and a players development path.

There is no excuse for Navratilova to have so much shorter a prime than Evert, particularly when one of her so called GOAT arguments is her incredible longevity.

So she gets brownie points for her longevity yet still supposably has a prime 3 times shorter than the other greatest player of her generation?

I dont think so. I am not going to give Martina her cake and let her eat it too here, this isnt the mid 70s anymore where she did alot of that when otherwise she should have theoretically already been starting her prime based strictly on age. To put it another way if Evert was really in her prime during Martina's 5 year dominance than Martina had better as heck have been in hers during the 80s when Graf was dominant otherwise her longevity tribute is a facade as longevity of excellent near peak play should mean more than longevity of just pretty good play.

Having gone over that even an aging Evert, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Sukova, all combined make a better supporting cast than Mandlikova and the other remaining clowns in the top 6 in Martina's- Shriver, early 30s Turnbull (and are we now expecting Turnbull to be prime in early 30s when the great Navratilova who began her prime extremely late and is lauded her longevity supposably cant be), Manuela Maleeva, Jaeger, Hanika, etc...

Graf yet for some reason I think we all should have voted court but we are too busy ignoring court's greatness and trying to degrade one player and ignoring the true point of the question.

Change my vote to Court talk about weak era...but Graf had a weak field..Serena when she did most of her slam winning had a rough field of Venus, Henin, Capriati, Cjlisters, Davenport, Sharapova, Dementieva...etc..

It was deep. Now might be weak but it's actually picking up.

AO 09 for Serena was a fluke and she I think has realized she needs to step it up.

Court faced a weak field according to you?

You are nuts. Court faced King, Bueno, and Goolagong all in their primes during the stretch of her first 3 slam year in 1962 to her last 3 slam year in 1973.

Those are 3 top 15 players all time.

She faced a young Evert in those later years too.

She also faced alot of other quality players- Wade, Richey, Jones, were all multiple slam champion and top quality players who have beaten all the best multiple times over.

She faced other dangerous good quality players like Casals, Turner, Melville.

Court faced a stronger field than almost anyone on this list.

Certainly more than Graf, Navratilova or more of all Serena Williams. Serena will end winning atleast half or more than half of her slams vs the current most pathetic ever field, unless you are suggesting she wont win 12 slams or more.

As for the field improving dont bet on it.

It is pretty sad when someone like Azarenka, or a 1 slam winner like Clijsters announcing her return, are the supposed saviors of womens tennis. Even in 2002 during her career year Serena's competition wasnt all that hot, and nothing like you are potraying it.

Clijsters and Henin were not in their primes in 2002, and anyone who even tries to suggest they were are delusional.

Their primes did not even start until 2003 at the earliest, unless you are suggesting in their primes they were only the equal of Hantuchova and Dokic.

Mauresmo was not a real contender to win slams until starting in 2004.

Sharapova wasnt even a noteable player until 2004, was she even on tour in 2002 for crying out loud (she would have been 14 years old that year).

Her toughest competition was Venus who is submissive to her younger sister and always sucked on slower surfaces.

Davenport was her next toughest competition, and even someone like Sanchez Vicario is arguably as good or better a player than the much stronger hitting, but far slower, less consistent, and less mentally tough Davenport.

Capriati is essentialy a 1-slam champion calibre player who through sheer extreme luck became the worst 3-slam champion player in history.

The only strong field Serena ever faced was 1999 when she won 1 slam and poor results at the others, and 2003 when she impressively won 2 slams vs an increasingly stronger field.

That is it. Come to think of it I should have voted Serena instead of Navratilova.

Serena faced the worst field during her era of all these women by far.

Navratilova the second worst.

Graf's field was somewhere in the middle of this group of women.

Court faced one of the strongest, I dont think Court is the best women player ever but what a joke picking her field as one of the weakest while still defending Serena's to boot.

Quote: : Court faced a weak field according to you?

You are nuts. Court faced King, Bueno, and Goolagong all in their primes during the stretch of her first 3 slam year in 1962 to her last 3 slam year in 1973.

Those are 3 top 15 players all time.

She faced a young Evert in those later years too.

She also faced alot of other quality players- Wade, Richey, Jones, were all multiple slam champion and top quality players who have beaten all the best multiple times over.

She faced other dangerous good quality players like Casals, Turner, Melville.

Court faced a stronger field than almost anyone on this list.

Certainly more than Graf, Navratilova or more of all Serena Williams. I am sorry outside of Bueno and King, Court was done really before Evert was dominating.

Don't do the whole double standard crap now.

Note saying Henin was not a contender for Serena is ridiculous but then making attempts to justify Evert being heavy competition for Court.

I am sorry to say but Court's played in an era were few women were professional in tennis.

Bueno was her real opponent and King was to busy trying to establish the WTA tour to dedicate herself to tennis all the time and Gooalong popped up at the end with Evert but overall Court has no huge names.

She played in the amatuer era and half her slams came at Ausrtalia.

Where her biggest comptition rarely even ventured to..Bueno and King.

Please Court is lucky to have as many slams as she does it would probably be a few left had more top women went over to Australia and King been more dedicated to the tour.

Quote: : I am sorry outside of Bueno and King, Court was done really before Evert was dominating.

Don't do the whole double standard crap now.

Note saying Henin was not a contender for Serena is ridiculous but then making attempts to justify Evert being heavy competition for Court.

I am sorry to say but Court's played in an era were few women were professional in tennis.

Bueno was her real opponent and King was to busy trying to establish the WTA tour to dedicate herself to tennis all the time and Gooalong popped up at the end with Evert but overall Court has no huge names.

She played in the amatuer era and half her slams came at Ausrtalia.

Where her biggest comptition rarely even ventured to..Bueno and King.

Please Court is lucky to have as many slams as she does it would probably be a few left had more top women went over to Australia and King been more dedicated to the tour.

Court as late as 1973 had a year winning 3 out of 4 grand slams.

It seems pretty clear her prime lasted until 1973 atleast.

Evert in 1973 played Court in the French Open finals, Wimbledon semis, U.S Open semis, won 12 tournaments, and wasnt a real opponent or rival to Court that year?

Please, give me a break.

Of course Evert wasnt dominating until Court was "done".

How on earth do you dominate when Court in her prime was winning 3 slams a year often.

Was Venus not even good now when Serena was on top because Venus didnt "dominate", LOL! Court faced more of prime or close to prime Evert than Serena did of Henin, which is mostly Serena's fault of course (and somewhat Henin's too now for retiring if Serena ever manages to rediscover a "prime" by some miracle).

To imply Henin was in her prime in 2002 when she was a borderline top 10 player who was owned still by each of Davenport, Clijsters, a past her prime Seles, and even Hantuchova is pure nonsense.

Evert in 1972 was alot closer to her prime than Henin in 2002 ever was.

Evert in 1972 was in the semis of her two biggest events of the years (Wimbledon and the U.S Open), won her 3rd biggest event of the year (Virginia Slims Championship) and had an outstanding 3-1 record vs the #1 player of that year Billie Jean King.

Henin and Serena faced each other close to their primes for only one summer, that is it, nothing else.

Summer of 2003 they played twice on clay, once on grass, Justine won both on clay, Serena won the one time on grass, that was it for a near prime Justine vs a near prime Serena, the end.

Heck they didnt even play another match again after this until 2007 where as you are so persistent in saying Serena was out of shape, way past her prime, etc So the real joke is your implication Evert was somehow less of an opponent to Court than Henin was to Serena. Goolagong's prime was clearly 1971-1976 so basically she had half her prime during the final 3 years of the Court era. Yeah King could have potentially been even greater had she focused more on tennis.

That still doesnt change the fact she still is a top 8 player all time in the eyes of almost everyone inspite of that.

She is a better opponent than ANYONE Serena has faced.

Bueno you also acknowledge, and she is as good or better than Venus who is Serena's only great contemporary rival (as I already established it is a joke to count Henin, especialy if you are discounting Evert).

So Court's second best contemporary rival (even if we exclude Evert and Goolagong) is greater than Serena's best contemporary rival. Few of the women were "professionals" back then?

Few of the women in todays pathetic womens field are professionals in the true sense of the word either.

Fat lazy pigs who constantly choke and dont practice such basic things as serve and volley (isnt that obvious just watching them play), and who are now making too much money without really earning it, a heavy contrast to back then for the women in a sense. The one point you are correct on is the Australian Open.

Yes Court's tally is greatly inflated there.

However even if you bring her down to the 5 slams that she garnered at 2 of the other 3 fully attented slams (and with the home court factor she would have won atleast that much) she would still have 18, which would tie her with Navratilova and Evert.

Flying24, You also have to take into account that Court stopped playing tennis to have children and to retire.

That alone probably took away a number of majors from Court's great resume.

Also in her absence from tennis she would have to get back into top playing form so one pregnancy may cost her about a year and a half of peak performance. Court won about 190 tournaments in her career and about 92% of her matches.

She won about 63% of her tournaments entered and she played Evert, King, Goolagong, Bueno, Navratilova, Wade.

To me, that pretty tough competition.

Court in her prime, if she was playing today would still be tremendous.

She had great physical talent, she was fast, strong and fairly tall plus of course her great tennis skills.

Very interesting question. One thing though, is it really accurate to say that Henin reigned from 2003 to 2007? I think even 2003 is arguable.

Serena Williams won the AO and Wimbledon, then proceeded to miss the rest of the year. At the very least, that would tend to argue against the quality of competition in terms of 2003. Henin didn't exactly reign in 2005 and 2006 either.

I guess I consider 2003-2007 the Henin reign since she won 7 slam titles those 5 years, almost double the next most- Serena's 4, with the next most being a few women who won 2 those years.

Collectively over those 5 years she was by far the best even if she was only the dominant overwhelming #1 in 2007.

Also in 2003 and 2006 I think she also had the overall best year of anyone by a bit and was the true albeit not dominant #1, despite Serena's injury in 2003 (injuries are part of tennis and Henin has had her share of health problems that prevented her from dominating more this time too) and Mauresmo winning 1 more major in 2006.

In 2004 I sort of think she was the best that year too, winner of the Australian, Pacific Life, and Olympics, certainly more big titles than anyone else even with her health problems that year.

Only 2005 was she clearly not the best overall, just dominant on clay but dissapointing elsewhere.

I voted for Serena.

It's funny and kind of sad for Serena that even in this extremely weak era of women's tennis she was still close to losing the #1 ranking at Miami and will definitely lose the #1 ranking in a couple of weeks - http://www.cbssports.com/tennis/story/11608486 With this kind of field, any of the other great women players would have a field day and would probably go undefeated for the entire season and would both hold the #1 ranking and win majors with ease.

[Quote: =CEvertFan;3303061]I voted for Serena.

It's funny and kind of sad for Serena that even in this extremely weak era of women's tennis she was still close to losing the #1 ranking at Miami and will definitely lose the #1 ranking in a couple of weeks - http://www.cbssports.com/tennis/story/11608486 She already lost it

[Quote: =ace-nelis;3303142] Quote: : I voted for Serena.

It's funny and kind of sad for Serena that even in this extremely weak era of women's tennis she was still close to losing the #1 ranking at Miami and will definitely lose the #1 ranking in a couple of weeks - http://www.cbssports.com/tennis/story/11608486 She already lost it No, she loses it when the April 20th rankings come out.

Read the article.




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet