I’m not sure what a “British weekly listings magazine devoted to television and radio programme schedules,” as Radio Times is described, knows about tennis. But I do know that lists like this exist solely to stir up discontent. Case in point: If you’re going to mix eras -- including Rod Laver -- then John McEnroe absolutely deserves to be above Andy Murray, as would Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Mats Wilander and even six-time major winner Carlos Alcaraz. Ivan Lendl probably deserves to be above Andre Agassi, who trails in majors, total titles, year-end championship wins, year-end No. 1 finishes and overall weeks at No. 1. And as much as I respect and adore Bjorn Borg -- whose ability to win the French and Wimbledon back-to-back is unparalleled -- he surely belongs under Pete Sampras. Yes, he retired much sooner. But the list should be based on what a player accomplished, not what they might have, and Pete has three more majors and more than double the number of weeks at No. 1.
And this is the Radio Times women’s list, which I don’t have any strong quibbles with:
But along the Bjorn lines, Monica Seles should probably also be placed based on what she accomplished -- putting her after Billie Jean King and Margaret Court -- rather than on what we assume she would have achieved had she not been stabbed. (Talk to Little Mo about "would haves.") And calendar Slam winner Margaret belongs ahead of Billie Jean, who has half her majors in singles and trails by six in their head-to-head. (Even if you erase all of Margaret's Aussie Open crowns, she still has more majors than BJK.) And a case could be made for any of the top three to sit at No. 1 -- Serena Williams with the most majors (23), Steffi Graf with just one fewer (having retired a decade younger than Serena) and the only one of the three to win the calendar Grand Slam (with the corresponding Olympic gold medal), most weeks at No. 1 and most year-end No. 1 finishes, and Martina Navratilova for the most combined majors (59), including 18 singles titles despite playing in an era when two of the four Slams weren't routinely contested, plus the most WTA titles (167 to Serena's 73), the most match wins (1,661 to Serena's 858), and more weeks at world No. 1 than Serena. But even as an ardent Steffi/Chrissie Evert fan, this feels about right.
6 comments:
If it was based on what we assume would have happened, Seles would be #1 given her trajectory prior to the attack.
@Frank. Touché. But how does someone who won nine majors leapfrog people who have won many more?
Andy Murray in the top 10?! LOL. And I think Steffi should be ahead of Martina. Steffi won the Grand/Golden Slam, has more majors, and was a much better player than Martina on all surfaces. (My opinion is based on their singles record only. If you include doubles, you could maybe argue that Martina is the GOAT.)
Just playing the game of the difference between the reality and if we are assuming what could have happened. Agree in actuality Seles ranks lower, especially below BJK.
@Jim: Right? I'm just remembering that this is a British publication, so that explains his ridiculous ranking. I remember when Tennis used to poll all the top journalists for their annual yearbook and Judith Elian of l'Equipe would put Françoise Dürr No. 1 lol
Margaret should be ranked no lower than fifth. And, despite all of the claims by American tennis media, there were plenty of Hall-of Famers in those Aussie Open draws. It wasn’t her fault they didn’t make the final. And, Madge had a winning H2H over BJK in both singles and doubles. It would have been interesting if her career had overlapped more with Navratilova. Court almost won the GS in 69 and 73 too.
Post a Comment