Originally Posted by CEvertFan
It's generally known and acknowledged by tennis historians and fans alike that during the 60's NO ELITE PLAYERS other than Margaret Court played the Aussie Open so her stat of having 11 titles there is a little inflated and although it gives her the GS record it doesn't make her the greatest player ever.
Well if one considers it a reasonable estimate she would have won 5-7 titles there had it been a fully attended slam, that would still give her 18-20 slams, definitely among the all time greatest. I say 5-7 since she won 3 Wimbledons on grass, 5 U.S Opens on grass, generaly underachied at Wimbledon, and would get probably a bit of a boost playing in front of the home crowd. Then again she would still then probably hold no significant records in all likelihood. Her most grand slam singles gone, her most grand slam doubles combined gone, her most grand slam slam womens doubles her most combined grand slam singles/womens doubles/mixed doubles gone. Totally up in the air who would hold the most slam titles at the Australian Open itself, could be here, or could have been a number of people had it always been a fully attended slam.
Also players like Navratilova and Evert would likely have won more slams then their current 18 total, had it been a fully attended slam then, whether it was on grass or hard courts. Evert only won 2 titles there vs 3 Wimbledons(grass)and 6 U.S Opens(hard). Navratilova only won 3 titles there vs 9 Wimbledons(grass) and 4 U.S Opens(hard court, and some bad luck at the U.S Open too).
I dont rate her the GOAT either for the same reason. I would have her either #3 or #4 in the Open era, just ahead of her great rival Billie Jean King who I have #5 in the Open era.