Sorry, the whole Slam-counting thing for choosing Court as the greatest doesn't reflect how poor the draws were for the Australian for many years. If Court was indeed the greatest ever, she would've had greater success in the other 3 majors than Graf, Navratilova, or Evert, and she simply didn't. Court was a great player, don't get me wrong, but better than the other 3 (or Serena in my opinion)? Don't think so.
A few misconceptions need to be cleared here:
1. Take away ALL of Court's AOs, and she still has 13 slams.
2. She won 5/10 of the FOs that she played.
3. She actually did beat players like Bueno, King, Richey and Goolagong in some of her wins there.
4. Sure, some draws were easy, but are you telling me that none of the others ever had easy draws? Please, just look at Serena's latest wins. She beat none of Venus, Kim or Justine. Why do the tough draws only seem to be a problem for Margaret? Graf's biggest rival was taken out of the game ffs, and look at some of the pitiful draws that Evert and Navratilova had.
5. Margaret was considered an all-rounder, a rarity who played just as well at the net as at the back. The AO suited her game to a tee, just as other players have been more successful at one slam than the others (often winning more at 1 than all of the others combined, like Venus winning 5/7 at W, Justine 4/7 at the FO, Hingis 3/5 at the AO, and Navratilova dead even with 9/18 at W).