v2 G.O.A.T Round 2 Match 2

Roger Federer went one on one with boxing legend Henry Armstrong in yesterdays first round 2 match up and after voting closed the Swiss had trounced Armstrong and strolled into the last 16.

We have two match up's today the first of which will see another tennis master Rod Laver take on one of footballs greatest Lionel Messi.

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Below are the previous round 1 articles written by forum members

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Lionel Messi- Football- Championed by Chris Wilkerson

It may seem ludicrous to talk about a man aged 25 as the Greatest Of All Time. Lionel Messi could easily have ten more years in football, and with talent like his he would have ten years at the top of the sport.

It's no cliche to suggest we are running out of superlatives to describe the Argentinean's performances. Messi is a magician. Young and old are mesmerised watching him at work, a player who has transcended the cynical modern critics, and brings back a level of excitement to the sport that many lose with age. People will watch Spanish football just to see him play.

Even the egomaniacs like Diego Maradona - “his potential is limitless and I think he’s got everything it takes to become Argentina’s greatest player"" - and Cristiano Ronaldo - ""Messi has his personality and I have mine. He has his game and I have mine. I also play in a big club like him. We are different in every aspect. But right now, he is the best"" - have had to give in to the brilliance of Lionel Messi.

The achievements are constantly stacking up. Leading Barcelona goalscorer of all time, four Champions League top goalscorer awards in a row, a Guinness World Record for most goals in a year (91), four Ballon D'Ors, an Olympic Gold Medal five La Liga titles, three Champions League winner's medals and many more.

In a team game, the contribution of others can be noted as one player achieves greatness. There is no doubting he is playing in one of the greatest teams of all time. But, quite possibly, without Messi they would be nowhere near some of the notable greats.

He is a one man sensation. He not only compares to the solo sports star, he eclipses them.

If he was Sampras he'd have won the French Open and won at least 5 more Australian Open's too.

If he were an opening batsman he'd average at least 70, and he'd be racking up 5 for's like he was owed one each game.

Whilst these one man bands have just an opponent to focus on, Leo Messi is a marked man who has players flying at him all game, a constant focus for every outfield player. He plays with a smile, never deceives the referee and never stops running at players, no matter how hard they hit him.

The one grey spot is the lack of international trophies, which must be a driving force to a man who only has Olympic Gold for his national side. To stick with the tennis comparison, the Argentinean side with their appalling defence, line of poor managers and destructive behind the scenes politics are like forcing Federer out on court but banning him from serving.

In a sport where the collective can restrict the achievements of the individual, Lionel Messi is standing head and shoulders above every man playing, and has the ability that no other man before him has had.

They said he didn't turn up in the big games, he couldn't play against English sides and his heading was weak. He scores a header against Manchester United in the Champions League final to clinch victory in Rome.

His weakness is the international stage. He has 76 caps at 25 years old, and 31 goals. Nearly a goal every two games, some weakness.

A boy who had to have hormone treatment as a teenager to help his growth, who was slated as too injury prone at the age of 18, has become a man that every player watches in a daze and no one wants to face.

Whilst much of this may seem trite, his brilliance is almost overwhelming. I cannot list all his achievements, I cannot describe every moment of majesty which outdoes the last. There is not the space nor time.

He's already eclipsed any individual brilliance of any sports star, and at 25 he has years ahead to widen the gap.

Youtube screams legend with every clip of the maestro.

Even in the modern days where to have been great in yesteryear appears to put a man on a pedastal that stars of today cannot match Messi is talked of as greater. In the world's most popular sport the man is head and shoulders above every competitor.

Messi because Laver played his Tennis in a weaker era racking up in a number of convoluted championships.

Went with Laver.

Messi, because he is on course to become the greatest footballer ever.

i think this one is gonna to a very tough call!!

But deffo messi for me!

I'm going for Laver.
I prefer to judge on what they achieved and their position with respect to their contemporaries, rather than any so-called weaker era.
This is a guy who reached the Wimbledon final in 1959 and who beat Bjorn Borg on clay in 1974. Another match vs Borg in 1976, when Laver was 38, went to a third set tie-break.
He won 4 consecutive tournaments in 1975, crushing Guerilitis 6-0, 6-2 in one match.
How long was the weak era - 15+ years?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm going for Laver.
I prefer to judge on what they achieved and their position with respect to their contemporaries, rather than any so-called weaker era.
This is a guy who reached the Wimbledon final in 1959 and who beat Bjorn Borg on clay in 1974. Another match vs Borg in 1976, when Laver was 38, went to a third set tie-break.
He won 4 consecutive tournaments in 1975, crushing Guerilitis 6-0, 6-2 in one match.
How long was the weak era - 15+ years?

The weak era is still on going

Messi for me.

Voted for Federer yesterday and think he has surpassed Laver so in the interests of diversity, I'm going to vote for the greatest footballer I've seen in my lifetime.

Could be a close vote this.

Messi for me. Don't think Lavers achievements stack up against his more modern contempories while Messi is on course to becoming the greatest footballer of all time

Can't vote for a twenty-five year old. Messi may well have had my vote five or ten years from now. For now, it's Laver, easily.

Laver, without a doubt for me. 2 Grand Slams 1962 and 1969, never been done again. @SirJohnny... please note.

Graf would come close with her Golden Slam in 1988.

@Super .... I would take Pele over Messi. (and I do agree with Captain - Messi has many more years ahead of him for his legacy to Football).

Not an easy pair for me to judge -

Laver now clearly not considered the best men's tennis player, and whose record is complicated to assess because of the amateur/pro divide of the key part of his career. OK, the Grand Slam in 1969 was an unmatched acheivement (only Slam of the Open era), but comparing his other achievements against later contenders is not easy. My thought when Federer was included yesterday was that if you put Fed into Laver's era (equipment, physical conditioning etc) he'd be a strong challenger, but if you put Laver into the modern era (powerful rackets, more athletic game style) with his size and skillset he'd struggle to make the top 20 or so (although I'm sure he'd find a way to maximise his results even in a game that doesn't suit him).

However, I was strongly critical of Messi being included in the GOAT list - the guy has fantastic talent but so far has relatively little to show for it (a few Spanish titles and iirc one Champions League win). Not surprising considering he's only 25. So far I'm not convinced he should be considered in the top 10 footballers of all time, although clearly if he continues to perform well over the next 5 years or so his legacy will be greatly enhanced.

As such, I'm voting for Laver at this stage. Re-run this poll in a decade and I'd probably change my opinion.

@DH... the hand skills were exquisite for the touch game of Laver. McEnroe comes close while Federer was on the cusp and transition stages.

(a few Spanish titles and iirc one Champions League win)

Two.

@Super .... I would take Pele over Messi.

Pele played before I was born (1978). Messi comfortably the best I've seen in my lifetime (and I include Maradona). I've seen plenty of footage of all the greats but I've never seen anything like Messi and celebrating that level of talent (and no little achievement) is what this tournament is all about. I tihnk he's more than worthy inclusion.

I can see the arguments for Laver and this is a tough decision but I have to go with Messi as I think he;s worthy of consideration in the later rounds.

although you cannot compare era's at the same age pele had scored more goals, achieved international success, won domestic trophies in the best teams in the world.
I see pele as greater than messi.
So im going for rod laver

I think it's got to be Laver for this one.
Don't think you should really judge how great a sportsman might be only half way (or, possibly, less than half way) through their career.

Laver achievements in tennis are impressive, 1 GS in tennis, whatever the main event lads may say, is the pinnacle of a career, let alone two!

Messi for me does not even make the top ten in football.

went with Laver. Messi may one day be considered the greatest footballer of all time, but right now just hasn't achieved enough for me. Not his fault, he's too young, and I'm not a fan of having guys barely halfway through their career on the shortlist.

Simply put, if you stop Messi's career now, then Laver has the superior achievements (2 calendar GSs is certainly worth more than 2 CL titles).

interesting jeremy kyle, why do you say that about messi?

As others have said am not overly keen to have people in who are so early in their career as Messi is. I agree he is an extraordinary talent and his achievements thus far are nothing short of phenomenal but there are still things that could happen which could dint his legacy. For all we know he could move to Italy or England and fail to be anywhere near as effective. Unlikely I concede but you never know. No such caveats apply to Laver who was clearly the best of his era and one of the finest of all time, gets my vote in this one.

LuvSports! wrote:interesting jeremy kyle, why do you say that about messi?

You have got to win the World cup to be in that league!

i agree to be considered the goat you have 2 but who is ahead of him then, apart from the obvious ones.

Personally have never been convinced with the idea you have to win a world cup in football to be considered great or amongst the true elite because where you are born is a largely arbitrary thing and if you’re unfortunate enough to be born in a country where there are not a lot of great footballers or where the country happens to be going through a relatively fallow period whilst you can improve on this it is too much to expect a player no matter how good to elevate that country to world cup winning level.

You only have to look at George Best or Giggs, both fine players in their own right but never had a cat in hells of winning the world cup given their country of birth. Don’t like marking guys down for stuff beyond their control. However for all that Messi is slightly different as Argentina cannot be compared with Wales or Northern Ireland talent wise and the fact he has thus far not turned up at a world cup to any kind of degree can be a black mark. However his age has to factor in this, he will be around 27 at the next one. You would have to think he will be nigh on prime and so still has time to have a big tournament.

That's harsh enough, but is true. It's difficult to consider both Giggs or Best as a football GOATs. And what about Platini then? Exceptionally talented players: yes, GOATs: not for me.

Personally have never been convinced with the idea you have to win a world cup in football to be considered great or amongst the true elite because where you are born is a largely arbitrary thing and if you’re unfortunate enough to be born in a country where there are not a lot of great footballers or where the country happens to be going through a relatively fallow period whilst you can improve on this it is too much to expect a player no matter how good to elevate that country to world cup winning level.

Think Maradona might have something to say about that. Argentina wasn't a great side in 1986, but it is widely regarded that Maradona single handily won that World Cup for Argentina with some brilliant individual peformances.

getting very close- messi took a storming lead and now look Laver has caught up!!- the tennis fans have all woken up(are you all unempliyed lads that get up late or summin!!)

Rowley

I agree that (now) winning a football world cup is not the most important part of a player's legacy - I think the top European clubs are now significantly better than the best national sides, and so the Champions League is probably where the toughest football is played. However, being the outstanding player at a World Cup certainly does promote a player's legacy. Two considerations follow on from this:
1 - Obviously the CL is an annual competition whereas the World Cup only occurs every 4 years. How many times do you have to be the dominant player in the CL for it to match being the dominant player at a World Cup
2 - In the case of Messi, he's been a very good player in an exceptionally good Barcelona team. How well will he do in a team that doesn't have Xavi and Iniesta pulling the strings in the midfield?

Your comment regarding Best and Giggs and their opportunities at international level is well made. Clearly though, Messi is not in the same group, as he represents a country that would usually be expected to be in the later stages of the World Cup

MfC summed things up well earlier - if Messi was to stop playing today, would he be considered as amongst the finest players ever?
For me, so far there is not enough substance to his record to say that he is in contention as the football GOAT. There's huge potential over what is to come in the next few years, but at 25 it's still more about what might happen than what he has done.

Agree to a point Legend but do think the extent to which Maradona won the 86 world cup single handedly is over stated. He was obviously the premier player there and the determining factor but it is often made out like he elevated a pub side to win it. The squad contained the likes of Passarella, Valdano and Ruggeri, all fine players in their own right.

Do think it is too early to beat Messi with the world cup stick just yet, he had a poor tournament last time and was a kid prior to that, agree though Brazil is a big tournament for him and his claims to greatness will potentially be greatly boosted by what he does there.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:went with Laver. Messi may one day be considered the greatest footballer of all time, but right now just hasn't achieved enough for me.

I'm not sure how anyone could deduce that Messi hasn't done enough yet, to be honest. I think a comment like this suggests that he's almost too good for his own good, if you see what I mean.

How many other players are the all-time top scorer at one of the genuine mega clubs of world football? How many other players have won four Ballon D'ors? How many other players have won three World Player of the Year titles? How many other players have won two / three Champions League titles (can't quite remember whether or not he qualified for a winners medal in 2006)?

My point is, if Messi had done all of this over a professional career spanning fifteen, sixteen years or so, he'd still be one of the ultimate, elite giants in the history of football. That he's managed to do all of this in just seven / eight years, however, doesn't mean that he's "not achieved enough." It means, to me at least, that he's just achieved more than anone could ever think was possible by the age of twenty-five.

Why is Inesta so snubbed??

This is a player that has more to say what happens in the spain and barca sides.. When he doesnt click(which is very very rare- the team never plays as well- messi hardly touches the ball!!)

I find it crazy that he is never considered as a GOAT.. Because to me he is the most infuencial player ever!

messi is without doubt in my mind the most skillfull player ever!

For me there is no one else that comes in to play for Goats of footy.

exactly dummy half! messi doesn't have a xavi and iniesta at argy obvs and look at his impact there, pales really.

Probably will turn out to be the hardest Round 2 match to judge. It's one of sports great imponderables...how much more would Laver have won if tennis hadn't spent the majority of the 60s with its head up its administrative and organisational @rse with the banal am/pro issue.

As many others have stated, Messi is a difficult one to call as well as he's probably not even at his peak yet (which is astonishing when you consider what he's already achieved). I do see Messi as a very effective footballer operating in probably the best club side ever assembled so obviously that helps his scoring record although he still actually has to convert. I don't quite see him in the same outrageously flamboyantly talented (a la Pele, Maradona, Best) but at 25 he possibly still grow to be).

In 10 years time (assuming no career halting tackles in the short term) he would probably win this hands down. I thought about going for him because I went for Federer yesterday and I agree about the need for diversity but then I thought What if Pele had been in match 1 then Federer in match 2....how would the diversity argument work for this one?

I'm going to plump for Laver on the basis of actual longevity at the top of his sport (he had no control over the form that the top of the game took during his peak years. I judge him on his record in his era and I recognise that the top stars of today's game play quite a different style of tennis. Laver was a tenacious competitive winner who squeezed every last ounce out of the talents & skills he had. Messi might well do that too but time will tell us that.

but it is widely regarded that Maradona single handily won that World Cup for Argentina with some brilliant individual peformances..

Unfortunately it's widely regarded Love sacks!

exactly dummy half! messi doesn't have a xavi and iniesta at argy obvs and look at his impact there, pales really..

12 international goals (including 3 against Brazil) last year suggests otherwise. It's Argentina's other failings (their defence and midfield) that have held the team back over the last few years - not Messi. The last World Cup was a shambles with Maradona largely to blame.

I think 'Love sacks' is ruder than the word I typed.

88Chris05 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:went with Laver. Messi may one day be considered the greatest footballer of all time, but right now just hasn't achieved enough for me.

I'm not sure how anyone could deduce that Messi hasn't done enough yet, to be honest. I think a comment like this suggests that he's almost too good for his own good, if you see what I mean.

How many other players are the all-time top scorer at one of the genuine mega clubs of world football? How many other players have won four Ballon D'ors? How many other players have won three World Player of the Year titles? How many other players have won two / three Champions League titles (can't quite remember whether or not he qualified for a winners medal in 2006)?

My point is, if Messi had done all of this over a professional career spanning fifteen, sixteen years or so, he'd still be one of the ultimate, elite giants in the history of football. That he's managed to do all of this in just seven / eight years, however, doesn't mean that he's "not achieved enough." It means, to me at least, that he's just achieved more than anone could ever think was possible by the age of twenty-five.

I get where you're coming from. If Messi were to retire tomorrow he'd be a football great for me, but I would still rank him below Laver in terms of achievement. In purely footballing terms, apart from the obvious Pele and Maradonna, someone like Puskas won his fair share of CL titles (I would guess more than Messi), yet wasn't even on the 64-man shortlist.

This brings us to the obvious difficult call whenever considering someone from a team sport: how much of Messi is due to Barcelona, and how much of Barcelona is due to Messi? I'd argue it's almost certainly a bit of both. It's obvious Messi benefits from playing with Barcelona, as you have only to compare his international stats (not shabby, but significantly less good - about one goal every 2.5 games IIRC) to his club ones. I'd also say Messi benefits from playing in what is to all intents and purpose a league with two dominant teams and not much else, I think he'd do less well in England for instance, certainly.

Balanced against that is the fact that Messi undoubtedly contributes a huge amount to the Barcelona side, and they would be much less fearsome without him (indeed, one has only to watch them play Chelsea when Messi isn't playing so well to see the effect). his four Ballon D'Or are testament to that also.

Nevertheless, I stand by my initial position: if Messi retires tomorrow his achievements don't match Laver's, hence Laver gets my vote. In five years time, if he continues at anything like the current rate, Messi would take it, but I don't believe in voting on potential, that's too gray an area for me.

superflyweight wrote:

but it is widely regarded that Maradona single handily won that World Cup for Argentina with some brilliant individual peformances..

Unfortunately it's widely regarded Love sacks!

exactly dummy half! messi doesn't have a xavi and iniesta at argy obvs and look at his impact there, pales really..

12 international goals (including 3 against Brazil) last year suggests otherwise. It's Argentina's other failings (their defence and midfield) that have held the team back over the last few years - not Messi. The last World Cup was a shambles with Maradona largely to blame.

Don't agree. yes he scored those goals but it was against an average brazil side (huge state of transition) talent but not as much substance. He has not done anything of note in a competition bar olympic gold in 08!
It could be argued they have a stronger team than they did in '86 now and maradona has said himself messi is better, yet his performances in SA were poor.
France in 06 got through to the final through senior leadership from the older, experienced players, not domenech.
Same could be said for england in the rugby world cup 07 and france '11. (I know its not the same sport but still I think a point worth raising).
Argentina haven't been dragged through by messi when they were under performing ala maradona.

I'd also say Messi benefits from playing in what is to all intents and purpose a league with two dominant teams and not much else, I think he'd do less well in England for instance, certainly.

I think the level of competition is at least comparable with the Premier League where only two teams (this year - 3 if Chelsea get their act together) can realistically win it. 4 Spanish teams through to the last 16 of the Champions League against 2 from England. Atleti are reigning Europa League champions and spanked Chelsea in the Super Cup. Bilbao played United off the park in the Europa League last year. Atleti also splitting the big two this season.

If the current Barcelona and Madrid teams played in England - one of them would win the league.

Good reply, Mad for Chelsea.

Apologies, it seems as if I may have slightly misinterpreted your original post anyway. I thought you were dismissing Messi in direct comparison to Laver purely because of his age, you see. Obviously, you've now clarified that you consider Laver's achievements greater, so I understand totally what you were saying now.

As it goes, I actually did vote for Laver. Only brought this issue up because I think Rocket Rod can still compete with Messi without having to bring up the caveat that Messi is still so young to bolster his claims.

Very tough. Almost an abstention...

Either way has merit, but I echo superfly (on his vote rationale rather than later use of the words love sacks!). Messi is the best I have ever seen and shades it.

Sorry Laver fans (although you have every chance of winning it today anyway it's that close)

88Chris05 wrote:Good reply, Mad for Chelsea.

Apologies, it seems as if I may have slightly misinterpreted your original post anyway. I thought you were dismissing Messi in direct comparison to Laver purely because of his age, you see. Obviously, you've now clarified that you consider Laver's achievements greater, so I understand totally what you were saying now.

As it goes, I actually did vote for Laver. Only brought this issue up because I think Rocket Rod can still compete with Messi without having to bring up the caveat that Messi is still so young to bolster his claims.

no apology necessary, having re-read my initial post I see why it could be taken that way (the "he's too young" bit especially). More a case of "too young to have had the time to (IMO) match Laver's achievements as of yet" (if that makes sense).

I think barcelona and real would deffo fight over the PL at the moment.

But only over the last year or so. There has been a minor blip in form in europe for our teams.. however its not something that is gonna last..

superflyweight wrote:

I'd also say Messi benefits from playing in what is to all intents and purpose a league with two dominant teams and not much else, I think he'd do less well in England for instance, certainly.

I think the level of competition is at least comparable with the Premier League where only two teams (this year - 3 if Chelsea get their act together) can realistically win it. 4 Spanish teams through to the last 16 of the Champions League against 2 from England. Atleti are reigning Europa League champions and spanked Chelsea in the Super Cup. Bilbao played United off the park in the Europa League last year. Atleti also splitting the big two this season.

If the current Barcelona and Madrid teams played in England - one of them would win the league.

it's not so much a case for me of just the number of teams who can win the league, in which case I agree with you (though Chelsea should be competing ). more a case of how many teams can be competitive against the top two. I think I'd be right in saying that Madrid and Barcelona have both finished on more points than the champions of England in most of the last 5-6 years. Very few teams will take points off the top two in Spain, probably at most 2 or 3 teams (other than each other) could do so without it being considered a genuine upset. In England, a mid-table team drawing against a Manchester club would be a surprise, but less so.

[quote="superflyweight"]

but it is widely regarded that Maradona single handily won that World Cup for Argentina with some brilliant individual peformances..

Unfortunately it's widely regarded Love sacks!

Right because they would've won it without Maradona

yeah its widley regarded that marradona cheated and without that cheat argentina probally wouldnt have won

Agree to a point Legend but do think the extent to which Maradona won the 86 world cup single handedly is over stated. He was obviously the premier player there and the determining factor but it is often made out like he elevated a pub side to win it. The squad contained the likes of Passarella, Valdano and Ruggeri, all fine players in their own right.

I agree it is too early to beat Messi with the World Cup stick. I think during their qualifying campaign to the 2010 world cup they used something like 70+ players and it was chaos and as you said it is out of Messi's control.

Maradona was fortunate to have a team that could accomodate a very individual thinking player.

Given Messi's record at the moment, it is scary to think what he can achieve in his career.

Laver by a country-mile.

Messi imo isn't even the best player in the world at the moment.

He plays for the best team in the world, where his supply his Iniesta and Xavi. Ronaldo gets good supply, but Real have never been able to hold the ball for long periods like Xavi does with Barca.
Also Ronaldo has proven himself in two leagues, while I'm yet to see how Messi would do in another league. Would he also do as well in the PL as Ronaldo did?
I put Ronaldo just ahead of Messi atm therefore.

WARNING: DO NOT VOTE LAVER

Seeing as Rod Laver is nominated in this round, we thought it would be appropriate to post an article we originally penned back in March 2010 (edited for up-to-date information) pertaining to Rod Laver and his legacy.

For years, since ‘Potato’ Pete Sampras and Roger Federer respectively set new records for Grand Slam titles won, journalists and casual observers have mentioned the name Laver as a contender to the throne.

Laver won 11 Grand Slam titles but ‘missed’ 5 years of Grand Slam events (21 in total) during the professional-amateur divide. Laver won all 4 Grand Slams in 1962, his final year before turning pro, and won all 4 again in his first full season back, 1969. On paper this seems impressive.

The Laver Ol’ Boys would have you believe that ‘The Rocket’ is the best ever. They say that he would have won 15 plus Grand Slams during his 21 event ‘exile’. This would have left Rod with 26 plus Grand Slams to his name. Too good to be true?

Of course it is.

It is important to remember that Laver’s first 6 Slams were won as an amateur, when all of the top players were playing as professionals. These 6 titles are worthless. There were many superior players to Laver at this time – Gonzales, Rosewall and Hoad, to name a few – and Laver wouldn’t have won any of those 6 Slams if he was competing against the strongest field.

When Laver did turn professional, he was totally uncompetitive against the top pros for a year and a half. This proves that Laver's first 6 Slams carry no credibility. But Laver did, eventually, become the top man. In total, during his pro career, he won 8 out of the 15 professional Slams.

If there had been 4 pro Slams per year, perhaps Laver would have 2 more, maybe 3 if we account for the 21st Slam he ‘missed’. That, generously, gives him 11 out of 21 Slams. Very good, but nothing like the 15/16 that the Ol’ Boys ramble on about. In addition to the 5 Slams he won during the Open Era, that gives him 16.

But something that the Ol’ Boys never mention is that the pro Slams only contained 16 players in the draw. Nothing like the 128 player draws that the modern day Grand Slams have. Laver only had 15 other players to contend with in all 15 pro Slams that he played.

Possibly the most important factor in this debate is the depth of talent in the game at that time. Only someone totally detached from logic would disagree that it’s harder to win Slams in the modern era than it was in the ‘60s.

Ken Rosewall, in 1974, reached 2 Grand Slam Finals aged 39. Inconceivable in today’s game. That is a damning indictment on the level competiton at the time. What does that say about Laver? If Rosewall could reach Finals aged 39, why couldn’t a 32 year old Laver reach any Slam Finals? Laver failed to adapt. He didn’t have the power or the guile to pit his wits against the younger generation.

Pancho Gonzales was generally regarded as the best player of the pre-Open era. In 1970, Gonzales defeated Laver in a $10,000 winner-take-all, five-set match at Madison Square Gardens - when Gonzales was 41 years old.

Another important factor is that 3 out of the 4 Slams were played on grass during Laver’s era. How many more Slams would Roger Federer have if that was the case today? 4 at least. That takes Federer’s hypothetical tally to 21. Laver won his last Slam (his hypothetical 16th) aged 31. Federer only recently turned 31 and still has time to extend his lead (hypothetically 5 Slams) over Laver in the Grand Slam stakes.

The Ol’ Boys are blinkered by their lust for the past. They have told and retold Laver's story. But when we consider the facts, it is clear that the story of Rod Laver’s greatness is simply a myth.

You've already posted that about Laver this month, you boring naughty naughty boy.

Hans, you posted that tripe yesterday didn't you? Why do you keep applauding your own posts as well - they aren't very good to be honest.

Voted for Laver, 11 Grand Slams and all that.