Originally Posted by BobbyOne
Prisoner of Birth, Welcome to the Club!
Thank you for giving these statistics that at least show that Rosewall belongs to the same group as Laver belongs. But, similary to me, you will not find many followers here....
It's good that you omitted the amateur majors as they are not too meaningful.
I think the only reasons Laver is more highly regarded is
1. The Grand Slam. I think it is a very overrated achievement. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely the most prestigious achievement in Tennis. But what people don't realize is that (1) A calendar year Grand Slam is no more special than a non calendar year Grand Slam. It's like saying a match won in November is more special than a match won in March, which is a total falsehood. And (2) You need luck to win a Calendar year Grand Slam. You may be Sampras on Grass, Federer on Hards, and Nadal on Clay, all put together, but you still wouldn't win one without an ounce of luck. That's what I believe.
2. The head-to-head. Which is a joke. Laver is much younger than Rosewall. It was only after Rosewall was past his best, and Laver came into his own, that he started to win more matches than he lost. Head-to-head is meaningless regardless, anyway, because every player matches up differently to different players and no match is completely fair. Which is why you need to beat the field to win tournaments, titles and championships, not individual players.
So, basically, I see no reason to think Laver is greater than Rosewall.