Certainly Rosewall and Laver must be counted amongst the very greatest of all time - their achievements speak for themselves. What I want to know is - why is it that people don't give Rosewall as much praise as Laver? It seems to me that Rosewall's achievements are comparable, if not better than Laver's. Consider the following criteria: Amateur Majors: Rosewall - 4 Laver - 6 (including a Grand Slam in '62) Pro Majors: Rosewall - 15 (including a Pro Slam in '63) Laver - 8 (including a Pro Slam in '69) Open Majors: Rosewall - 4 (6 if we include the WCT finals in '71 and '72) Laver - 5 (including a Grand Slam in '69) Now, I don't think the Amateur Majors hold much weight (comparatively), nor does Laver's Amateur Grand Slam in '62 - because clearly the Amateur field was weaker than the concurrent Pro field, which included Rosewall (indeed, Laver himself says that he spent much of his first year as a pro, '63, getting soundly beaten by Rosewall and Hoad). Even if we do consider Amateur Majors, Laver only leads Rosewall 6-4. So that leaves us with Pro Majors and Open Majors, where Rosewall has a record of (15 + 4/6) compared to Laver's (8 + 5). Is Laver's '69 Open Grand Slam really enough to overcome this deficit, compared to Rosewall, in terms of his overall legacy? The numbers seem to say that Rosewall was the more accomplished of the two players, so why doesn't he also get the recognition which Laver (rightly) does?