well i think it is. laver won over 180 tournaments, 2 calendar grand slams and a calendar pro slam. all unmatched achievements. federer still has a heavy losing record against nadal.
rosewall is underrated by this list, he could easily be top 5, definitely top 10.

Yes, but Federer has his own set of unmatched achievements. It's so hard to compare between their times, between the nature of the tour, the equipment, the style of play. Laver has a great case, and I'm fine with him at number 1, but I don't think it's an absolute lock.

Incidentally rv, what do you think Federer (and Nadal for that matter) would have to do to achieve number one?

hard to say. laver beat rosewall in his prime at the french, who was considered the greatest clay player (won 8 french pro slams, 2 french opens) and had an overall winning record against rosewall. you would think federer would need to at least achieve this against nadal to make it a certainty

I pretty much agree with this.

I don't necessarily think Federer has to have an overall winning record against Nadal...because for a few years Federer was the only other guy making clay court finals and Nadal is just so dominant on clay...yet Nadal wasn't often making the finals to play Federer on the other surfaces which I think has perhaps permanently skewed their head to head (he has started to in the last year or two but as Federer has slightly declined). Federer has beaten Nadal on clay a couple of times...but not at the main event. I think he either needs to beat Nadal in a French open final or semi final (and go on to win the final). If he did that I could see him ahead of Laver. The other way is to have a second wind, win a few more slams and create a significant winning record against Nadal after taking away clay court results. If he can do that and get back to number 1 in the world again I could see him first as well. Longevity could get him ahead.

Nadal just needs to stay the best player 3 more years and keep winning slams. If he can win a calendar grand slam and keep beating his main opponents I could see him as a potential number 1.

What I see in both their way is a fit Del Potro.

It's impossible to compare eras, though. Laver won 180 tournaments, but is that the equivalent of 180 tournaments today? I don't know. In 1962 alone, Laver won 22 tournaments. Federer hasn't even played that many tournaments in a single year since 2003, when he was just climbing to the top. It's impossible to play that many tournaments today. The game is too grueling if you're making final after final. Plus, players wear down so much faster now (maybe due to the increase in hardcourts?). Players retire now in their early 30s and are past their primes by 28 or so. Laver didn't even peak until 27 and played until he was almost 40. There's pretty much no way Federer (or any modern player) can match Laver's record. The game has just changed.

I think the best thing to do is contextualize each player's achievements. We can't just say, "Federer doesn't have 180 tournaments like Laver, so he can't be the greatest." Granted, I still think Laver is probably the greatest player in history, but I think you're approaching the debate from the wrong angle.

The main reason players' careers don't last as long and they aren't able to play as many tournaments is because tennis is exponentially more physical now than it was in Laver's day. Tennis is a physically explosive sport now.. far, far moreso than in the past. The amount of racket speed that players generate on every stroke now is approximately twice that of what it was. The baseline game that 99% of players today play, plus slower courts and drastically increased foot speed, also results in much longer points than in the serve-and-volley, grass court era.

So, as has been said, you simply can't compare players from different eras with any kind of objective accuracy. The game is completely different.

I don't think you can compare players of different eras in terms of who would beat who because as you say, the game has evolved substantially, but I think you can compare players in terms of how they performed in their eras (and against their biggest rivals) relative to others. You obviously also have to consider the relative competitiveness of those eras. Though it's more subjective, you can also still compare talent...because shot making ability and tennis skills are observable.

The top players now don't play as many tournaments because financially they don't have to.The prize money now is quite substantially more even in real terms compared to say Laver, Rosewell probably even Connors era's. I'm not sure whether physical demands are playing as big a role as what you think. The game has changed,it has increased in power play due to the quality of racquet's and balls used, but has the playing for each point decreased? I now see a lot of points through aces or a return of serve winner or maybe two returns tops and less rallies compared to say 25 years ago. Its more shorter bursts of power shots (men's mainly).

NO

Go away.

Fuck you ;) ;)

i often forget that borg retired at 26, never played the aussie (except once) and missed a couple of other slams because of WTT contracts. that man could have won a truly obscene amount of slams if he really wanted to

He was on the slide age 26. Mentally more than anything else. One of these guys who peaked really young. He got out before his legacy might have been damaged.

kinda did get damaged a bit when he returned .... not winning a single match mustve hurt ....

yeah well that was absolutely hare-brained, 35 with a wooden racket