I think there's no question that, in order, V/S/Davenport are the top 3.
Then it's pretty close between Mauresmo, Sharapova, Hingis and Henin.
Although not winning it, Henin reached the most (5) semifinals, and the most (2) finals. AND she is the only one to win Eastbourne, which she did twice and she won s'Hertogenbosch and reached another final for a total of 3 grasscourt titles/6 finals.
Mauresmo won it once, reached 4 semis and Eastbourne final.
Sharapova won it once, reached 3 semis and 2 Birminghams + another final + 2 semis.
Hingis won it once, reached 2 semis & 1 quarter, won s'Hertogenbosch.
The fact that Mauresmo & Sharapova won it and backed it up puts them ahead of Henin IMO, but Henin trumps Hingis, despite not winning it, she still has a better record at Wimbledon.
8. Capriati (2 semis, 5 quarters, win over MN)
9. Clijsters (2 semis, 3 quarters, Eastbourne/s'Hertogenbosch titles)
10. Bartoli (Wimbledon final, 2 Eastbourne semis + Birmingham semi)
11. Dokic (Wimbledon semi + quarter, Birmingham title)
More often than not, in sportsresults matter more than feelings and opinions. You don't win seven matches purely by luck without the skills to do so, especially on grass. The obvious top 2 are Venus and Serena....
Lindsay (the reason Lindsay has 1 title is due mainly to Venus)
Moresmo (1 title due mainly to Serena)
Maria ( 1 title due to Venus mainly)
Justine (0 title due to those above who are better on grass
Hingis even though she has 1 title I think this was before the game of the others were fully developed in '97.
Of the remainder they would have to consistently get to the qrts or better for them to be considered. Their main problem is just that they usually meet the better players in the latter rounds.
I think a win over Novotna on grass is worth more than one over Mauresmo/Sharapova/Henin. I think we need to give Hingis credit for her Wimbledon title and grasscourt skill.