I always try to give full credit to the legends of the past, so i find fair and even enjoyable reading some posterd argue in favor of them. I consider Federer the best (and most accomplished) player ever. I concede that other players resumees are astonishing also (in my case i think that only Laver and Gonzalez are in the same league, sligthly below but in the same league nonetheless). But the problem with some old posters is that they take numbers and do not analyze them carefully. For example it has been said numerous times around here that Laver has won 200 tournaments, that is a fact, but you can`t use that number to favour Laver over Federer to name someone. How many of those tournaments had a 4-8 man field??? As another poster said it is just an apples to orange comparison. It would take a modern player to win 10 tournaments a year during a 20 years career, it is just absurd to think about that given the conditions today. The game is getting more physical year after year at exponential rates, the percentage of hardcourt tournaments today is much bigger than the past with the obvius negative results on the player`s joints, the prize money and endorsements the top players are earning allow them to play less tournaments, etc. So the sheer number of tournaments won isn`t a valid point to bring up in favour of the old players. On the other hand i believe that Federer majors records being an amazing feat as they are (majors won, consecutive finals, consecutive semifinals, etc), only apply 100% when comparing him with players of the modern eras, that is why i think of him as the clear GOAT of the open era and my best choice for an all time GOAT but i admit that given the changes the game has suffered is quite debatable.
So the next time you try to argue in favour of player