I'm honored,
@Moxie ;-).
I may end up being a bit long-winded as there is a lot of ground to cover to give an adequate answer.
At the end of 2016 I made up a top 20 list and gave Rod Laver the edge over Roger for the GOAT crown, although it was pretty close. Going back a few years - late in 2013 or early 2014 - I was thinking that Rafa would inevitably be considered the GOAT, and deservedly so, based upon his resurgence in 2013 and the fact that Roger seemed to be essentially finished. I have also dabbled with the idea that Bill Tilden could be considered the GOAT based upon how dominant he was, and for how long. The point being, the GOAT is a shifting target - and that includes who is #2, 3, etc.
As I have said before, when I look at the GOAT and all-time rankings in general, I primarily consider how dominant a player was at the time he (or she, but we're talking ATP) played, although will privilege recency when in doubt because of my agreement with the generally held view that the overall level increases over time, not to mention the increased depth of players. This is an approach that is pretty consistent among analysts and historians in all sports. For example, Babe Ruth is considered by just about every baseball historian as the GOAT, even though it might also be agreed that Barry Bonds or Mike Trout are technically better players given the advances over the past century. But no one dominated the sport like the Babe did. Every sport has their version, to various degrees.
So with that consideration in mind, I think Rod Laver's level of extended dominance surpasses Rafa's. It is now hidden behind a paywall, but TennisBase.com had a pretty complicated (perhaps overly so) ranking system that saw Laver be YE1 for eight years: 1962, 1965-71. Actually, their rankings give credence to the idea that Tilden is the true GOAT as he was #1 for
13 years - which is 5 more than anyone else (Laver). Of course the context of Tilden's era was quite different from today so we have to take that into account. But this allows us to bypass the problem of amateur vs. pro Slam counts, because their rankings take into account a lot of factors.
Anyhow, as I said, a year and a half ago I had Laver as the GOAT. But given Roger's resurgence, I now give Roger the edge. In fact, his last three Slams are possibly the most impressive of his career considering his age. This is where the subjective factor comes in.
As for Laver vs. Rafa, for me it comes down to the extended dominance. The main knock on Rafa for GOAT is not total Slam titles (which could end up surpassing Roger), in my opinion, but extended dominance as #1. Rafa's prime years see a lot of up and down, peaks and valleys, without the extended high plateau that marked the careers of other GOAT candidates, from Tilden to Gonzales, Laver to Sampras, and of course Roger.
In that sense, I personally think that weeks at #1 is hugely important in the GOAT conversation. Now we don't have info on players before 1973, but some sites--like TennisBase--have created their own lists. The knock on Rafa is that he wasn't
consistently the greatest player in the sport to the same level of consistency as not only Federer and Laver, but also Novak, Sampras, and even other obviously lesser greats like Lendl and Connors. Now Rafa has other aspects to his resume that put him over those players, but whereas they are easily enough to counterbalance Lendl and Connors, and are probably enough to surpass Novak and Sampras, I don't think so with Roger or Rod.
Rafa is sort of like the Lancelot of the men's game. When he is at his best he may be the greatest ever. I mean, no player is as dominant in the history of the sport as Rafa is on clay, with the possible exception of Serena on the women's side when she's on her game. And Rafa during 2008-13 was pretty damn formidable on all surfaces. But to be the "true" GOAT, I think you have to have no real weaknesses to your resume. This is why Novak was heading towards possible GOATdom; midway through 2016 he had pretty much done it all: all that remained was padding the stats. But then he collapsed and, of course, Fedal resurged.
Anyhow, hope that answers your question.
) I know that it's fine-points between one ranking on the list and another, and not a perfect science. And I know that pre-Open performance was considered for those who straddled eras. Tignor, in his write-up of Laver mentions that, had he not been a "pro" for all of those years, he'd have 20 Majors, not 11. However, that's speculating on 9 Majors, and we'll never know. Interesting he came up with the number 20 in his speculation. I think he's prizing style over results, as he does talk about Rod having a lot of shots. Obviously, the 2x CYGS. But then why Laver over Nadal, but not over Roger? I'm sincerely interested in everyone's opinion, but especially @El Dude's.
