Serious question, without any trolling or fanboyism. We all know that the "GOAT debate" always focuses a bit too much on current players, as the media and fans salivate over those who are still plying their trade, and everyone wants to believe they are watching "the greatest to ever play the game". It makes people feel special to think that, in their time, they are seeing the pinnacle of tennis history. However, over time, when certain players retire, their position in history drops, as an objective reading of their achievements means they can't be spoken of as GOAT contenders. McEnroe and Agassi obviously fall into this category - players who are much more 'famous' than others who were greater than them, but who obviously are not top tier greats in the long run. I also think, sadly (as he was my original favourite when first watching tennis) that Sampras' reputation will decline, slightly. Not by much, and he will always be considered a top tier great. However he will probably not be considered GOAT when any future tennis history books are written, due to his clay record and Federer surpassing his slam count. Conversely, some players' reputations seem to remain intact, and actually prosper, after their retirement. Laver is the obvious example. Borg is an interesting case, as I think his reputation has remained intact, but the reason for his immortality has changed (ask someone 30 years ago about the reason for Borg's greatness, and it would be his 5 straight Wimbledons, whereas ask someone today, and it would be his three Channel slams). The most salient case for me though is Bill Tilden. Now, I am not saying I consider Tilden the GOAT - but what I am saying is that it's incredible he is still ranked by all knowledgeable experts as being top 10 all-time (minimum), some 90 years after his peak. And this, despite his personal life being one which was at best tragic and at worst, despicable. (I don't want a discussion on this point, the only reason I mention it is because you could understand if some people had wanted Tilden's name and tennis record airbrushed from history - but that record was simply too great for this to be possible) Anyway, as we know, each subsequent generation from now will produce great players, and over time, some of those new players will take their place in the 'consensus Top 10' greatest players ever - and, by definition, some of the players now considered in that 'consensus top 10' will have to drop out. Much as, if the 'consensus Top 10' had been done 50 years ago, it would have included names like the Musketeers, Perry and maybe Doherty, none of whom are generally considered in that category now (by most). So my question is, who, of players who have already existed, is most likely to still be ranked as the GOAT, or very near the GOAT, in 100, or 200 years' time? Personally, although I consider Federer the GOAT, I think the man most likely to be up there still is Laver. This is because I see his two CYGS's as the most unbreakable record in tennis.