There are endeless debates about who is better or worse and why...they are comparing eras...bla bla bla.Lets assume that comes a player who in every aspect of his game is indistractable.Moving perfectly huge serve lethal from both wings and destroys the competition in virtually every tournament he enters and competition like nadal fed djoko Sampras Agassi etc at their very best.His game is beautiful and effective he is strong good looking....salt of the earth kinda guy...lololololol(he basically has everything).Do you really believe that even he would be accepted as the best ever or that the same excuses would apply even for him?
1)He played in a mug era cause for example...fed nadal and the others couldnt win against him.He can never be THAT good.All the others must be THAT bad.
2)He is to smug to be the best..cause the best ever must be king of sportsmanship as well(And if you are winning all the time we cant possibly know....so we prefer to call you smug)
3)The competition are chokers(imagine nadal for example without a French open but still playing exactly the same) they dont have the winning mentality and they pretty much hare handing him the trophies left and right.
4)Anything else you can think of.
My point is simple:Even if a human moving wall appears in the other side of the court will people ever accept him as the best ever or would they use the same excuses over and over again.My guess is that they will do exactly the same all over again...what do you think?