Serena seems high to me. The men are similarly accomplished and did so overlapping their primes while Serena had no rival. And Novak, in particular, ended up with more Grand Slams, more Grand Slam wins, more wins, more wins against top 10 players, more weeks at #1, etc. than Serena did I get Novak is not well liked, but there really isn't much of objective measure to put Serena ahead of Novak except for doubles, which they didn't even mention. Had they used the doubles with her sister as a tiebreaker, I think it could at least be defended, but the snippets they put, especially the pregnancy stuff, make it much less about the actual sport of it.
Yeah. If three of the top-12 athletes are male tennis players, and ND came along and won the most titles of all-time during that time period, he's the greatest of the 2000s.
Serena was much more of a cultural icon. In terms of tennis accomplishments, she's very slightly lower.
How many hockey players made the top-100? They seem a bit underrepresented.
plus, Andy Murray was on the list before Venus who was the only other women's tennis player. Novak behind Federer is also very strange to me, but at least Federer has more wins than Novak (less grand slams, but more tourney wins overall).
There are 3 hockey guys - Crosby, Overchkin, and McDavid. I'm not a big hockey fan, but that seems right. The hockey hey day was the 80's and 90's, not too many all time greats since then so them having less than the other sports doesn't seem all that strange.
Topic: ESPN top 100 athletes of the 2000's (Read 26562 times)