I don't even understand people's reasoning to use this argument. It's like saying all the grand slams Federer won don't count unless he beat Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament. That's absolutely senseless. If LD didn't have to beat LCW and CL in the same tournament, it simply means they weren't good enough to make it to the finals where LD had to play them consecutively. It isn't luck if Nadal loses in R1 of Wimbledon for example, but then Federer doesn't have to beat him in the final. Would Nadal provide a tougher opponent in the final than someone else? Maybe, but sport is about who's better on the day the match is played, not ifs and buts. For LD, he could only beat the players in front of him during the time he played. You don't figure out who's the GOAT by considering that this person didn't have the toughest competition during his career. People simply consider someone or some team to be the GOAT if they achieve sustained success over a long period of time.