That's a false equivalence. I can't even figure out where to go with it. If we all think that Sean Connery is the best Bond, how does it translate that Goldfinger is better than Thunderball (which it is,) in terms of the tennis? I'm all ears.
You also don't say, in the same way, that a player is lesser in year X than in year Y. Not in the same way. You give lots of credit to Federer's great years, and to Novak's. You have given Novak a bit of a pass for his walkabouts. Rafa, you credit only for on and off years. Is that completely fair?
What you don't get about your analysis of Rafa, in comparison to the others, is that you find a way to make it less. It's in the wording. In the organizing of the your statistics. I'm sorry to point this out again, but you made an entire post about who would end up with the most Majors...when Rafa had the most, at that time. You came up with about 4 options for Novak, but none for Rafa, which I pointed out to you. You did have to do a spit-take on that one. You like to think that you have no prejudices, but you do.
I like your take on tennis, and I love you as a friend. But when I tell you that you don't completely "get" Nadal, and that you have a certain prejudice when judging him, that comes from an honest place. Look at your resistance to Alcaraz. I get it, and you've as much as said it. Old scars.
I think most of this is projection: that is, projecting your defensiveness about Rafa into a mis-perceived attack. I have spoken
time and time again of Rafa's greatness, defended him against "haters," and called him one of the three or four true GOATs (adding Laver into the mix). I've disagreed with takes like Jeff Sachmann, who ranked Bill Tilden ahead of him. I've also said that while I give Novak the overall edge of the Big Three, I don't feel comfortable putting Roger or Rafa ahead of each other, and ultimately see them as basically equals.
And yes, you are misunderstanding me, as evidenced by your inability to not grok the Bond analogy. I am saying Rafa was better in 2017-2019 than he was in 2020-22. That is all. I said
nothing about how great 2020-22 were relative to anything other than 2017-19, but you somehow think I'm diminishing 2020-22 relative to...Roger? (Federer, that is, not Moore). Novak? Other greats? Who? I didn't even mention
anyone with regards to those Rafa spans. I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall of your insistence on making this a Fedalkovic Wars thing, when
all I was talking about how good Rafa was relative to himself! (and his own career).
But let me use a Roger analogy to illustrate. I think Roger was better in 2004-07 than he was in 2008-12, and better in 2008-12 than he was in 2013-16, and better in 2017 than he was in 2018-19. Am I denigrating Roger by saying that? Similarly, if I say Rafa was at his best in 2008-13, does that mean I'm saying he wasn't also great in 2017-22? Of course not! I'm just comparing two spans of time within his career - not relative to anyone else.
I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.
As for the rest...well, again, you're being overly defensive, and about stuff from years past. I have no interest in re-litigating old and largely forgotten conversations, if only because, well, I can't remember the specifics, and perhaps more importantly, they occurred in a different context. But to take one element, Rafa has utterly surprised me--and just about everyone--in his longevity. If that's me misunderstanding Rafa, well, I think just about everyone shared that at various points.
As for the stats I use, I can't believe I have to say this, but they are not made as an attempt to make Roger look better or to diminish Rafa. I make a formula that I apply to
all players in
exactly the same way, and see what the results are. I don't think, "How can I come up with a formula that makes Roger look better than Rafa?" I come up with formulas that I think express different aspects of tennis greatness and then see what the results are.
And Alcaraz?! I don't even know what to do with that. How is he relevant at all? And what is my take on Alcaraz that you think has to do with old wounds? How do you even think I feel about him? Again, why do you relate
everything to Rafa? Must all roads lead back to Rafa?
So your "honest place" may be honest in that it is how you see things, but I think you're missing the elephant in the room: your endless defensiveness about Rafa that colors your perceptions of what just about anyone--except for fellow Nadalites--says about him. I'm reminded of that Abraham Maslow saying: If the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. When it comes to Rafael Nadal, I think you only have a "shield," so everything looks like an attack.
