Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth
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.
Prisoner, I still rate the Grand Slam very high. Laver has done it three times. Rosewall did it once. Rosewall would likely made an amateur GS if he stayed as long an amateur as Laver did (till 24).
Old Man once wrote (and I believe him) Laver stands 99:83 matches against Rosewall which is a fine balance for Muscles considering that Rosewall was almost four years older. Yes, in most years (from 1965 onwards) age was a disadvantage for Rosewall. Of the first seven pro majors they played, Rosewall won five. Altogether Muscles leads 10:7 in big matches if we include the 1973 Dallas match for third place.
Prisoner, I appreciate your courage to put Rosewall ahead of Laver in a "Laver forum"...