Rod Laver won the Grand Slam back in 1969 when the AO and USO were both played on grass. If that were the case today, Federer almost certainly would have won the Grand Slam in 2009. What do you think is a bigger accomplishment; winning three slams on three different surfaces (moderate HC, grass, fast HC) and reaching the final of the other (clay), or winning four slams on two different surfaces (grass, clay, grass, grass)?
Also, just FYI, Laver said last week that he considers Federer the GOAT...
Uhh, Mr. ServeVolley, you should finish the quote...
he added, "...if there is such a thing". From listening to him talk in recent years, he wisely, I believe, does not believe one can compare greats of one era to another. Too many differences, variables, etc. exist to make any realistic comparisons. About all we can say that each was greatest during their time. And there are those that may dispute even that. Coincidentally, Roger Federer agrees with that.
Roger Federer just said this after winning this year's Wimbledon, in the context of being called the greatest player ever.
“I don’t feel better than anyone, because we need past champions to pave the way for our generation and we have become very professional,” he said.
“They have led the way and inspired myself and other players to chase the big records out there.
“Back in the day they weren’t doing that, they were just playing to play tennis. Things have changed dramatically with the press reminding us ‘you should do this and win that and you’ll be considered the greatest of all time’.
“And anyway I don’t think you can compare different eras in tennis.”
I have to respect him for saying that, especially when all the media hype is lauding him at the moment.