This is why such lists are truly impossible to perfectly come up with and are highly subjective. The game is totally different now than it was 40 years ago. Every decade that has gone by, talent means less and less. It has become more about cutting errors, having enough strength to be able to hit past your opponent and being physically talented. In a sense, it is a totally different game. You wouldn't see someone like Nadal in the 60s, nor would you see someone like Laver in the 2000s. So the only fair way to analyze these things are to compare each player to their own era rather than other eras and that is even a tough task as people can erroneously make meaningless stats/facts appear meaningful to blemish or improve a career. I mean even comparing 2000s and 1990s is tough enough, let alone 2000s vs the 60s, but I think this list is adequate for the most part.
You have to bear in mind that your judgment about less talent and more physical aspect would hold true only in these homogenized courts. Speed up the court little like what happened at the O2 courts you would see some completely different results; likes of Djokovic and Nadal getting bundled out; others would argue that Nadal and Djokovic were tired; but i am not entirely convinced about it.
I very much agree with Laver on the list at # 1 and at worst #2 because he was quite ahead of the time they were playing.
Apart from all the talents that he had you could see that he had a champions mentality and that means he would be very successful in most of the eras. Its not easy competing at the Age of 38 at the very Top level and giving them a run for their money. From one of the videos posted in one of the thread, he was playing Bjorn Borg who was aged just 18 and Laver was 36 and he drove Borg to a 4th or a 5th Set. You could see that he was something special.
I have no doubt that he would not be less than 5 in todays Era. If you take in account of such factors like being a better physical built, having Modern Equipments and a better tactical awareness about the game. I am sure it would be between Federer and Laver with Nadal dominating on Clay. But overall it would be between Laver and Federer. I have no doubt about it.
Have a problem with likes of Rosewall,Tilden and co. I can only speak for Rosewall as i had seen only his video. And i could see that he played at a Pace which was appropriate for that time. he used to meander at the court; but that was enough for that Era. Had a half baked forehand and backhand. Thats why i said those guys were very good but only for that time but Laver was a step or two ahead of them.