I was having a conversation with a tennis person on the debate of the GOAT in women's tennis. He asked why is this even a debate as it is obviously Serena. So I attempted to put my opinion aside and asked questions to define the scope of the issue.

When we are identifying who is the greatest what do you (the individual) look for? Total Grand Slams? If yes then the answer is Serena Williams (Open Era). End of discussion. She has 23 and Graf has 22.

This was accepted and the discussion was nearly short and boring until I was asked:

"Well what else is there?"

So here is the what else:

Graf vs Williams

Grand Slams - 22 (2nd all time) vs 23 (1st all time)
Singles Titles - 107 (3rd) vs 87 (5th)
Wins-Losses(%) - 900–115 (88.7%) vs 858–156 (84.6%)
Weeks at #1 - 377 (1st) vs 319 (3rd)

Those were what I thought to be the major stats in tennis but I am sure there are others that I am not thinking of. So I asked does a 1 slam difference make up for Serena's shortfall in the other stats?

The conversation ended with the agreement that it is a topic that can be debated. Very pleasant.

I know your position on this discussion so I am not asking for a war just another opinion. What stats should be included? How do you weight the numbers? I find it is the weights that often create the difference of opinion. Someone may say GS count is the end all be all. Someone may consider career titles a major stat comparable to Slam count.

Over to you.

In reply to nick2020
Nick I am assuming that the numbers you posted are correct. In that case, it's a no brainer. Graff is the GOAT hands down.

In reply to CricSham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffi_Graf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams

Numbers taken from there. Weeks at No 1 taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WTA_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players

In reply to nick2020

I am no tennis expert BUT I have had the great fortune to not only seeing practically all of the career of these two great tennis players but listen to people like Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert talk about this very topic.I think their opinions carry some weight but from my looking at the two players and particularly the couple times these two ladies actually played each other in 1999 I think it is clear to me and seemingly practically all the experts that Serena scaled heights hitherto unknown in female tennis in terms of quality of play.
I recently read that Asafa Powell has the most sub 10 second 100 meters and Noah Lyles has the most sub 20 second 200 meters but as far as I am concerned Usain Bolt is way ahead of those two gentlemen.
At the end of the day what I have discovered in the internet age is that very few people are susceptible to changing their opinions based on reasoning of other people so in a sense this discussion is "MUTE".

In reply to CricSham



Discussions are never so simple. I think even when we are looking at all the same things it is how we lean that makes the difference.

Take basketball and LeBron vs Jordan. In basketball we record more things for debate than tennis. So we look at points, assists, steals, blocks, fg%, etc while in tennis we do not ask who had more winners Graf or Serena. So someone may say LeBron is the GOAT because he was a more versatile player.

Also people look at what would happen if Serena played Steffi. In my mind Serena would crush her. But the modern game of tennis has changed so dramatically I do not think any of the greats - Steffi, Chrissy or Martina - would fare well on the current WTA circuit.

All things to consider.

In reply to Dukes



I understand the visuals but how did this translate to the numbers?

Heights unknown = wins? Because isn't that the ultimate metric here?

In reply to Dukes



Why are you so sure yourself and myself are immune? You may be one of those people as well.

To quote from a Key and Peele sketch on catcalling when Key asked him if he was seeing what he was doing wrong he replied:

"I have the worst seat in the house."

I would like to stick to the numbers game and the analysis that comes out of that.

In reply to nick2020




Absolutely not.

When you watch women's tennis in the 80's and 90's and you watch it in the era of the Williams Sisters it is like chalk and cheese.If you disagree with that evaluation then there is little point in prolonging this discussion.The muscle strength of the players, their athleticism and skill level is clearly different in this millennium.I concede that the racket technology is different but even allowing for that there is significant upgrading of skills.The sheer number of tennis players worldwide and tennis players from former Soviet-bloc and Eastern Europe.

Simply looking at a statistical model takes tennis knowledge out of the equation and I am surprised that statisticians can now be relied on to determine who is the best sports player in all sports without needing to actually look at the players.Such a concept seems ludicrous to me but clearly not to you.

In reply to Dukes



Why not?

She won 84% of the time she stepped on the tennis court.
Steffi won 88% of the time.
Chrissy won 90% of the time and played 400 more matches than Serena and Steffi.

If Serena took tennis to a new level she certainly was not as dominant as those 2.

I think we can always find the numbers. Visuals are very personal.

In reply to nick2020

The problem with just looking at numbers is it lacks context.

Do you think it is relevant that one player stops playing at 29 years old and the other at 41?

That is but one example to show that superficial analysis is dangerous and unwise if one is seriously looking at complex comparisons with numerous variables.

As my primary school teacher used to say

Easy lessons good for dunces.

In reply to nick2020



So few say that, that it's a non-starter.

His skill set is so limited that many are still wondering when did he ever pass Kobe and Kareem to even talk to MJ.

Also



Hmmm, where's the turn overs in that? I see you've fallen for the ESPN (and others) agenda. ;-)


As for Steffi, maybe we should take a 'stab' at something else to consider another factor?

In reply to JahJah

In reply to nick2020



The above stats don’t tell the whole story! IIRC, Serena opted not to participate in many tournaments, thus the record reflected such in her rankings and number of wins and losses! And like Dukes stated her career was a period of many more years!

In reply to nick2020
You’re right, nothing is ever so simple. It is also true that sometimes we fail to see that which is right in front of our eyes. But I believe most would agree that you cannot rely solely on the grand slam. Otherwise, Margaret Court is the greatest female tennis player ever to play the game. And that would be ridiculous. I’ve always felt it’s not possible to compare players from different eras. You simply can’t.
I interviewed Greg Chapell in New York in 2003 and he was very high on Sachin Tendulkar. He thought he was the best. Naturally, I posed the question to him. How did he compare Tendulkar to the Don. His reply was that Bradman never had to bat with the burden of expectation that Tendulkar faced. But I shared with him that Bradman played on uncovered wickets. He shared that Bradman played on only a handful of test grounds whereas Tendulkar played on over 50 to 100.
We cannot realistically compare players from different eras. Just my two cents.
PS: I am not questioning the numbers you cited, but I would certainly not rely solely on Wikipedia

In reply to CricSham

Did I read somewhere that Court didn't constantly play the best of her era because some of those players opted to not travel to OZ? I may be mistaken, so don't quote me on that.



Sounds similar to Lebron's yes man Rich Paul saying Lebron is the first to play in an era of a 24/7/365 news cycle and constant scrutiny, as if we the media didn't hound MJ and put out stories that his father was murdered because of his gambling debt.

Not that I already know the answer, but I am curious to know what are the GS records of their respective opponents during their reign ???

In reply to JahJah



You do an excellent impersonation of Detective Columbo with your Aw Shucks comments!!!!!!

In reply to CricSham



Having said it is impossible to compare eras you make the obvious assertion that Margaret Court is clearly not the greatest female tennis player.That suggests that while it is difficult to compare eras (we all agree on that) it is not impossible.

In reply to StumpCam

I did not look that up but here are some interesting facts to consider.

In 1988 Steffi won the GOLDEN SLAM which is all 4 GS titles as well as the Summer Olympics.
Here are the top ten players at the end of that year
1.Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova (32)
3. Chris Evert (34)
4.Gabriella Sabatini
5.Pam Shriver
6.Manueala Maleeva
7.Natasha Zvereva
8.Helena Sukova
9.Zina Garrison
10.Barbara Potter

In 2003 Serena won 2 GS titles
Here are the top ten players at the end of that year.
1.Justine Henin
2.Kim Clijsters
3.Serena Williams
4.Amelie Mauresmo
5.Lindsay Davenport
6.Jennifer Capriati
7.Anna Myskina
8.Elena Dementieva
9.Chanda Rubin
10.A Sugiyama
Please note that Venus Williams who reached the Finals of 2 GS that year was ranked # 11.

NOW
THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE ABOVE.

This is what separates human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom. The power of deductive reasoning

In reply to JahJah

You purposely left out my etc in the basketball stats?

In reply to Dukes



Dukes you are telling me is it wrong but not why.

The easiest thing to say is it lacks context without really explaining where the adjustment comes to the numbers.

In reply to JahJah



I agree. If not for a crazy Steffi fan taking out Seles her numbers would not have been what they were.

Valid point.

In reply to CricSham



I do not know if I would go as far as can't. I think it certainly makes direct comparisons complex.

Tennis has changed significantly. It certainly was a finesse game back in the small wooden racquet era. The modern game is now dominated by two types of baseliners - attacking or counterpunching. Maybe one could make the argument the all court style of yesteryear is more difficult because it requires a higher proficiency in many areas of tennis.

But tennis is significantly different.

In the pursuit of finding the greatest I like to look at what I think is dominance in your era. Unstoppable. Unbeatable.

I do think there are numbers we can use to guide us.

In reply to Dukes

All I can say from your post is, I know Steffi did not play Navratilova (32) and Chris Evert (34) times! in GS

In reply to StumpCam



You could then look at percentage which does not merely reward the most active. Her Win/Loss percentage covers that.