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.
There's one thing you've got wrong - the only time Navratilova could have played singles at the Olympics and had a legitimate shot to get a medal is in Seoul 1988 - she was already 31 y.o. - tennis stopped being an Olympic sport after 1924, was a demonstration sport at the '84 Los Angeles Olympics (Stefan Edberg and Steffi Graf won the gold medals which don't officially count as it was just a demonstration sport) and returned to a full medal sport at the '88 Seoul Olympics. Evert actually played in Seoul but lost early to Rafaella Reggi of Italy but Martina was too focused on winning her 9th Wimbledon title at this time and so decided to not play the Olympics.
As for Serena and being considered the best ever:
Grand Slam singles titles aren't the only criteria when you consider a GOAT candidate. There are many other factors you have to take into account - year end #1s, weeks at #1, total number of singles titles, consistent period of dominance etc and for most of them other than the major titles Serena falls far short of the "Big Four" of Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Court. Heck, even Davenport has more singles titles than Serena does (55 to 46) and has 4 year end #1s to her name because she mostly maximized her potential and Serena hasn't for the most part, and at 31 time is quickly running out on her career. She could have had the best numbers ever and dominated like no other if she had been more dedicated to tennis instead of her other outside interests but you can't fault her for wanting more out of life than just tennis, but you just can't put her in the same conversation with the "Big Four" either unless by some miracle she accomplishes a lot more than she has already outside of the majors.