With the greatness displayed by the likes of Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (in chronological order. And those are the 5 greatest players of all time IMO, as I just don't take the Laver era seriously, sorry), it made me think about certain things. Namely, how much surfaces and circumstances affects these all time debates. Now to be clear, we live in reality. In other words, we can only go by what we know. So things like surface homogenization, different eras and whatnot should not impact this conversation, at least not in any meaningful way. So what matters is your accomplishments. I'm pointing that out in order to clarify that this thread is more in fun, rather than a weak attempt at claiming "there is no GOAT" or whatever copout excuse people use. So, let's imagine that, for the past decade or so, two majors were played on clay, one on hards, and one on grass. Rafael Nadal would have some 7 extra slams to his resume. Roger Federer would be missing quite a few. Ditto for Djokovic. And we'd be talking about Nadal being the GOAT (by a landslide). Now imagine there were two grass court slams, one hards and one on clay. Not sure how many this would add to Roger's tally as he was winning many of the hard court ones anyway (in his prime), but I think it would definitely have negatively affected Novak's tally. The only reason I mention this is I think it's funny how this is so affected by something as arbitrary as the majority of tennis being played on hards. When it is all said and done, this is what the GOAT debate might end up hinging on. Clearly, Novak is the best hard court player of the bunch, Federer the best grass court player, and Nadal the best on clay. The overall tally is reflected accordingly. Of course we can play this game for any era. As in, I think Sampras would be the clear GOAT if two grass court majors took place in the 90's. Just food for thought.