Let everybody present their case as to why they are the Greatest ever.

[cpfan1]

In no particular order:

Sampras:
14 slams (tied for most ever)
7 Wimbledons
No Claycourt slams or even Finals
No career or calendar slams

Laver:
2 calendar slams
had to take several years off when banned from grand slams for turning pro. arguably would have had the record.
won second calendar slam after the banning

Federer:
14 slams (tied for most ever)
career slam
Head to head has someone currently who is better than he is in their matchup

Borg:
5 and 6 slams respectively in Wimbledon and Paris (2 even more contrasting surfaces at the time)
No US Opens but made several finals

Connors:
Won slams on all 3 surfaces
No French Open. Probably would have had 1 in 74 if not for WTT.
Record Tournament wins
One of the most lengthy stints at ATP #1


Nadal:
Better head to head than the current 'greatest'.
6 slams at age 22.
??may be physically breaking down??




VERDICT:
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Connors
*6. Nadal (gotta wait until he's about 26 and see what happens. could easily move up)

 

[CyBorg]

Laver didn't take years off. He played against the best on the pro tour and dominated.

His record is impeccable, on all surfaces.

After today's match I'd rate them purely on accomplishments as such, but I'd prefer to see how Federer's year ends up:

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Tilden
4. Gonzales
5. Federer
6. Budge
7. Borg
8. Sampras

 

[joeri888]

No Claycourt slams or even Finals
No career or calendar slams

This isn't exactly 'presenting your case'

 

[cpfan1]

This isn't exactly 'presenting your case'

My bad. Should have said pros and cons

 

[scineram]

He can present case why someone is not.