Flip through the latest issue of Gulf Weekly.
Now that one end of an argument is over with Roger Federer completing a career Grand Slam with his victory over Robin Soderling in the French Open on Sunday, the other has already begun with right earnest - is he the all-time great?
As of now, opinions are sharply divided and I can see as many choices as there are choosers. Andre Agassi, the last man to own all the four major tennis crowns, for one, is absolutely sure that Federer is right up there.
Pete Sampras, whose record of 14 Grand Slams Federer has just equalled, agrees with Agassi and so does many greats of the past, the present and possibly the future.
"It ends the dispute of where he fits into the history of the game. It will mean so much to him that a great hole he has created on his mind is finally filled," said Agassi soon after Federer realised his dream of conquering the red clay in the heart of Paris.
Yet there are murmurs of protest. For some, like former Grand Slam winner Pat Cash, it is almost blasphemous to address the inevitable question as to who is the 'best ever'. "There will never be a best player of all time. I find it shows a lack of respect for the past greats to even pose that question," Cash is quoted to have said.
Cash for sure had his compatriot Rod Laver in mind, justifiably at that, when he said what he said. But to me this sharp divide in opinion is the magic of sport.
To many this debate may be pointless or only a pleasurable pastime. But the more you dwell on it, the more you get sucked into it.
For now, however, let's stick to Federer and his achievements. By lifting the Coupe des Mousquetaires men's trophy on Sunday, the Swiss has now joined an elite band of just five others - Fred Perry, Donald Budge, Laver, Roy Emerson and Agassi - to have won at all four major tennis venues - Wimbledon, Melbourne Park, Flushing Meadows and Roland Garros.
Even Sampras, the immediate past great, or the one before him, Bjorn Borg, cannot boast of owning the complete tennis silverware though both dominated the sport at the peak of their careers.
But even Federer cannot match the Laver legacy of winning a calendar Grand Slam twice - that is winning all the four majors in the same year. It took the Swiss more than six years and 20 Grand Slam finals to complete his collection while the Australian great did it twice in the same year and, more interestingly, in two different eras - as an amateur in 1962 and as a professional in 1969.
In between, Laver could not compete on the tour as the sport was split between amateurs and professionals. This provides another hole in the whole argument about the 'best ever'. Laver certainly could have added to his Grand Slam collection of 11 trophies if not for this historic intrusion.
At another level, the competition then was not as global as it is today, notably with the fall of the Communist block and the invasion of power hitters from the former Soviet nations.
Laver was almost infallible at his peak. But Borg had McEnroe and Connors to contest with, Ivan Lendl had Mats Wilander and Stefan Edberg breathing down his neck, Sampras had Agassi and Boris Becker to deal with and Federer had the most difficult job of handling Nadal.
If not for the Spaniard, Federer may not have cried on the court and turned into a nervous wreck as he did in the second week of this French Open fortnight.
But this anomaly is not restricted only to tennis. In cricket, for example, Sunil Gavaskar the man who topped Don Bradman in Test centuries before Sachin Tendulkar broke it, never got to the three-figure mark at the Mecca of cricket at Lord's. He eventually fulfilled his ambition while in the twilight of his career, but it came in a first-class game and not a Test match. Poignantly it also proved to be his last game.
On the other hand, Gavaskar's junior teammate Dilip Vengsarkar went on to make three hundreds at the same ground, the only one to do so if my statistics are right. But curiously Gavaskar's 'non-achievement' is recalled more often than Vengsarkar's 'achievement'.
Coming back to Federer. The best thing about his feat is that he has achieved it while still in prime condition. He is just 27, has earned more than $50 million playing the game alone and is about to get into the family way.
Moreover, the pressure of completing the Grand Slam collection is past him. That will be the main worry for his opponents now, particularly to one person going by the name of Rafael Nadal.
My take is Federer will now be even more fierce, fearless and infinitely more fearsome. And he still has some day job to complete - winning the Davis Cup for his country and beating Nadal in a Grand Slam final.
The night job of changing nappies will have to wait till then.
