General Public and tennis journalists are still aware of Lenglen and not aware of Connoly.... That's the case
The main problem is that all ratings can be called laughable, because all of them are too subjective, including yours and any of mine and any of Steve Flink....
The only way to make it a bit more look objective is to count Majors,also taking into consideration Grand Slams and Career Grand Slams, because it's what was constant since 1922 ( it became really international a bit later though)
Players even during the time when Australian Open was with a weak draw sill were aware of it's Slam status,and who wanted to complete their career with all Majors travelled accross the ocean . Who didn't - their fault .
-Well, I know that everyone on TF gets an orgasm whenever they hear the word slam and just shrug their shoulders at whatever else someone might have done during their careers, but I don't think that's entirely fair. It's an impossible question to answer anyway since there are too many variables and ifs and buts involved.
-One of the biggest mistakes people make is to value a players' achievements based on what is considered the most important today as opposed to what was considered the most important at the time those players were competing. For example - today each of the four majors has more or less the same prestige. But before the 1980's there was a clear ranking order between them. Wimbledon came first, closely followed by the USO. Than there was a gap and the FO came in third. Than there was an another gap between the FO and the AO. In the 1970's many players considered the YEC the third most prestigious title out there.
-That makes it hard to assess the value of the slam wins of the oldies as compared to those of contemporary and more recent players. There are many oldies who never bothered to play the AO and missed out on some FO's that otherwise they might have won. In other words, players from the 1980's onwards had four attempts a year at winning a slam while many of those that came before that only had three or even just two attempts. One could say, "well, tough luck, they should have known better." But they played a schedule according to what made sense back then, just like players today do according to what makes sense to them now. What if for the sake of argument, say, Beijing in decades to come will grow into one of the most prestigious events on the calender and fifty years from now fans will look at the trophee and see that player X's name isn't on there? Would it be fair if they said, "well, tough luck. She should have known better and made winning that one a top priority."
-History often intervened as well. Two world wars inevitably took away from what some great players could otherwise have achieved. The pre-open "only amateurs allowed to compete" nonsense had less of an impact on the womens side of the game than the mens where you may just as well throw huge chunks of recorded history in the garbage can since many of the best only played the exibition circuit. Even so, there have been careers on the womens side that were affected by this as well, although not to a degree where one could argue that their recorded history of pre-open tennis is entirely false.
-It's hard to assess the achievements of players from the past in terms of how strong the opposition was compared with today, and the further back you go the harder it gets. It's probably safe to say that the 10 best players of Lenglen's or Will's era were not as strong as the opposition that later greats had to face. On the other hand, that's not their fault and they were so much better than everyone else and so dominant that there's reason to believe that they would have been great in later times as well.
-Today fans speak with contempt about players who reach #1 on the ranking list. In fact, if you make it there you automatically become an object for ridicule. Players themselves often shrug their shoulders at it as well. This was unthinkable before the 2000's when reaching #1 was one of the main goals of those who could possibly get there.
-And is it really fair to virtually ignore everything a player has achieved away from the slams, even today when many argue that slams are everything and nothing else matters? I don't think so. If someone whould for example win Indian Wells and Miami back to back it would be as big (arguably even a bigger) achievement as winning a slam, although because of everyone's slam obsession few would recognize it as such.
-I think that the majors are the four most important things to consider to decide on a players' greatness, but not to the exclusion of everything else. It's convenient to do so however since it takes a minimum of effort to find a list of how many slams each player won and then to decide, "there you have it! The ranking list of the all time greats!" I don't think it's that simple, although I won't deny that number of slams won is a huge factor in the debate.