So Rafael Nadal has won yet another French Open title, his 8th of his career. This is indeed an incredible accomplishment and pretty much nearly declares him as the best clay tennis player in the history of the sport. Bjorn Bork may want to argue and debate this, but Nadal’s dominance on clay cannot be ignored.
However, what should be ignored is this talk about Nadal potentially being the greatest tennis player of all-time.
This talk has to stop. Even if Nadal can catch the 17 majors that Roger Federer has, there is no way I can ever declare Nadal as the better of the two. Although Nadal can officially be considered one of the 10 greatest tennis players in the Open era, there is simply too much Nadal has to accomplish on top of those Grand Slam titles in order to even have the opportunity to outshine Federer when both careers are said and done. Even if Nadal continues to dominate those French Opens, there is so much more he has to do.
Like I said, Rafael Nadal is one of the greatest players I have ever seen. But:
Nadal has 65 total championship wins between Singles and Doubles play. Federer has 84.
Nadal has been in a Finals match 92 times. Federer has 114 Finals appearances.
Nadal won 81 consecutive matches on clay at one point. Federer at one point had 65 consecutive grass wins while also holding a 56 consecutive hard court victory streak.
Nadal has never won 24 consecutive tournaments. Guess who has.
Nadal has never been #1 for 237 consecutive weeks. Guess who has.
Nadal has never been in 33 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals. Guess who has.
There has been only one male tennis player with over 300 weeks in the #1 slot. Guess who it is.
There have been only two players with 40 Grand Slam quarterfinal appearances. Jimmy Conners is one. Guess the other.
And if we are really using the head-to-head argument as to why Nadal is the best, then let’s go in this direction:
Nadal has a losing record against Alex Correctja and Dominik Hrbaty, being a combined 1-5 against them. Does that make those two players better?
Michael Jordan has a losing record against Isiah Thomas in the playoffs. Does that make Thomas the better player?
Then let’s go with the Grand Slam numbers argument. It wasn’t as big a deal in the 70s and 80s, as we saw the better players like Bork and Conners skip certain major tournaments altogether, diminishing the amount of majors they had in their arsenal. But even if Nadal were to catch Federer, the number of these titles is not enough of a representation to truly display dominance. After all, Bill Russell, Robert Horry, and some guy named K.C. Jones have more titles than Michael Jordan. Does that make them better? Yogi Berra has more rings than Johnny Bench. Does that make him the better catcher? Tommy Henrich has 7 more titles than Ken Griffey Jr. and Ichiro----I really doubt you can declare Henrich to be better.
Roger Federer has been around two different eras that feature some of the greatest tennis players in history. Federer wasn’t eaten alive by the Sampras-Agassi era, and is currently thriving quite well in an era that features heavy-hitters that will see themselves in the Hall of Fame including Nadal, Djokovik, and even with some improvement Andy Murray. During Federer’s pure domination days he didn’t just win the majors, he thrived in the smaller tournaments left and right. His biggest weakness during the early 2000s was himself, as he played almost literally every darn tournament. His record is a massive, whopping 896-204. His biggest rival was only 11 years old when he had turned pro.
Nothing against the man, Rafael Nadal has set up a good case as to becoming the greatest clay court player. But the greatest of all-time? It has to be Roger Federer. There is no other answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment