Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
In your viewpoint what does Serena have to do in order to be the best ever. I believe she has to reach 20 slams and win a 2nd French. If she does that she will be GOAT IMO since she would:
-Obviously if she keeps winning slams any longer have the best longevity ever. She already has the best longevity ever IMO.
-Have the highest peak level play ever by a women. I know this is subjective but the general consensus already is Serena's peak level of play is the highest ever on all surfaces except clay. Higher than Graf, higher than Navratilova, higher than Seles, etc...
-Hold the real unasterixed slam mark, considering the asterixes next to Court's 24 (Australian Open illegitimate slam of time for women), and Graf's 22 (Seles stabbing). At most Court would only have 18 and Graf only 19 without these situations, so 20 would be the true mark ahead of Wills and Graf's 19, Evert, Navratilova, and Court's 18.
-Dominating the deepest womens field in tennis history from 1999-2003, thus proving herself vs the strongest competition of any player ever.
-Her records in both Olympics and doubles showing her completeness. Someone like Navratilova who also excelled in doubles had countless opportunities to play in the Olympics and did not even attempt to.
I think you might have some arguments with the stuff I put in bold above. But I think even with twenty majors she just lost a little too much and didn't win enough overall tournaments to be considered the best ever for career. I can see the argument of her best play for one match being the best ever. A lot of experts who have seen tennis for years believe that. I think it's possible that for one match she may be the best I've seen.
But for one year or a few years consecutively or a career I think you would have to go with players like Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court or even Lenglen or Wills.