Man, these posts can be maddening. We cannot rewind the clock and place other players against Pete Sampras on grass or hardcourt circa mid-1990s or anybody else. We cannot bring wooden rackets back and force all of the current greats to play with the Jack Kramer or Donnay a or even a Wilson T 2000 and see how the fare. It is just impossible. What we can look at his how overwhelmingly dominant certain players were against their respective peers. Until Nole surpassed Federer on this front, nobody had a better record against the top 10 in terms of win percentage over a period of many years than the Swiss Maestro. That is just a fact.
From late 2003 up through the end of 2007 he was so head and shoulders above everyone else it was mind-boggling. No one had seen that kind of dominance in a long, long time. He one across all services in if it were not for that wonderful left handed Spanish bull, he would have one multiple calendar year Grant slam offense because he was that much better than everybody. Novak has pretty much gotten to the same point at various times in the last decade. Even though he wins, he does not dominate as much as he grinds out these wins and does what is necessary to win. He has a struggles, but his mental fortitude and stamina are his greatest attributes. He does not hit as many winners as a Pete Sampras or a Roger Federer, but he is clearly the best player of the last decade. His numbers are unassailable. He is without question the most accomplished player since 1968, male or female. I do not view the number of wins that Roger obtained 20 years ago in any less polite than I view the wins of Rafael during his peak or the wins of Novak over the last decade. They earned the intimidation factor through having mental strength to win over and over, year in and hear out, over many years. All 3 of them have beaten new generations of players, as well as those that preceded them. Novak is doing it for longer and his numbers will continue to improve.
I do not believe in this weak era thing as much as I think I may have 10 or 15 years ago. You look at the world around you for a 5 or 10 year. And you admire the great skills of the champions of that time. McEnroe is an all-time great, but his numbers pale in comparison to the big 3 or even his 2 main rivals from the 1970s. He did not have the longevity, but his peak was very bright and he is remembered for his creativity and amazing natural talent. When Jimmy Connors came along, we were only a few years removed from the game changing radically in 1968. He was in many ways the catalyst and he should not be criticized or minimized because he brought a new style of attacking game to the court and dominated. Ken Rosewall was like Novak back in the day--still a mighty warrior even into his early 40s. At the end of the day, he earned his spot against Connors back in 1974 and was trounced by the indisputable king of that time. People forget Connors finished as year end number one 5 straight years, which overlapped with the rise of the angelic assassin from Sweden. Are we to demean the accomplishments of that great warrior from the 1970s, Jimmy Connors, because he was simply so good in the mid--1970s? I don't think so.
When I think of Rafa and all he has done, are we to put an asterisk next to his name because two thirds of his titles and even more of his major victories were on the red Clay? Do his victories during this time signify that he only accomplished all of this because players were no longer Clay court specialists or grass court specialists or Harcourt specialists and due to that dilution of being particularly skilled on one surface (as was the case for decades) means that it was a weak era for clay court tennis and he scooped up titles because of that? What a croc! He is the most amazing player I've ever seen on a given surface. It has been magical to watch and, particularly on that surface. I am not going to minimize his accomplishments, but simply say he was the greatest I ever saw. Would I like to see the man from Sweden play the Spanish Bull on that surface? Of course, but that will be in tennis heaven and I think it would be a great match.
I have to get back to work, but this has been a welcome distraction. I look forward to your comments as I am sure this discussion will rage on for years to come. I suppose Novak will win a few more majors and masters events and maybe he will get close to 500 weeks as world number one and people will not really be able to say much of anything. If you place another 3 or 4 years near this level he is at NOW, he may likely surpass Rogers total and maybe even that of Jimmy Connors. After that, he will own practically every record there is. It is what it is and my hat is off to the Serbian Slayer.
