Originally Posted by davey25
That is why Laver is the GOAT though. He has no flaws:
-versatility and success across all surfaces that were available at the time. Check.
-dominance over all main rivals. Check.
-longevity. Check (Rosewall and Gonzales actually have more but Laver still excellent in this area)
-extreme dominance of the game for a period. Check
-all court game. Check
-peak level of play. Check
So he didnt have to play a hard court slam. So what, there were many hard court or indoor tournaments and he dominated those too during his better years.
I picture Federer playing a prime Laver. Lets see a fragile backhand, not much comfort or reliability at the net, an overly defensive return game, and a fragile pysche against tough competition. Honestly I think Laver would eat Federer up most of the time. Heck if Federer fans put Nadal and his abilities down so much, well if even mediocre little Nadal (according to them) does so much damage to Federer, imagine what Grand Slammer at age 31 Laver and his near faultless all around/all court/all surface game and mental toughness would do to Federer.
But every player is also a product of his time. Laver is lucky that Gonzalez wasn't exactly his contemporary (even though they did play some matches.)
Similarly, if Fed and Laver had been contemporaries, they would have had to share all those trophies, making their achievements seem less spectacular individually.
There is just no such thing as a GOAT in my opinion.