Novak has won many titles on clay including many masters, but only 2 slams on clay. That's why I said that Nadal is the clear favorite on clay. But since 13/20 of his titles are on clay, he is thin in slam achievement on other surfaces vs. the other two guys. That's why I say novak's a more all-round player except doesn't compare with Rafa on clay; same with Roger. No need to embellish beyond that. And you may love to ruminate about the Roger/Rafa rivalry which is indeed great, but Novak is Rafa's age contemporary; he just matured/succeeded later. And they've played each other far more than Roger/Rafa. Again: If Novak wins on every measurable count of greatness save clay, it's gonna be hard to argue "they're all the greatest". Although I'm sure you'll continue to try. And I know you're not a lawyer based on previous statements about your profession....
Oh, you HAVE been paying attention. Good. And I will poke holes in your argument. I'm not the only one that can be perceived as arguing from a fannish position. You are, too, and I'll make my case, as you will make yours.
Any notion that Nadal is "thin" in achievement at Majors is ridiculous. He has 20 of them, and on all surfaces. He was actually the first man to hold Majors on clay, grass and HC in the history of the ATP. Personally, I get very tired of Novak fans pointing out that Rafa and Nole are essentially contemporaries, except that Novak matured later. To that point, Nadal peaked earlier. So do you want to make the excuse for Novak that he took longer to mature? Then you don't get to say that he and Nadal are essentially the same age. Rafa dominated him earlier, but that never seems to count with some people. Nadal has also played 79 more matches than Djokovic, which is more than a year by any winning standards, and still has a higher win percentage. So, in tennis years, it's more than a year.
There was an entire era of Federer and Nadal before Novak got to his 2.0. You may hate that people continue to embrace that, but I assure you that it's part of tennis lore and history that you can't erase. Both Federer and Nadal had hit their stride, and Roger was rather past it, before Novak found the his way to a better version of his tennis. It will always be factored in. If he was so great, why didn't he drop into the party when he was more age-appropriate, if you want to make the point that he's only 1 year younger than Nadal? He won one Major, young, then didn't win another for 3 years. He was still a bridesmaid when Rafa and Roger were beating each other up for Majors. The time-line will always be an issue, which is why most say they'll always be spoken of in the same breath. For all the crowing about how he has a favorable h2h v. Fedal, it's not THAT favorable, given the number of times they've played, and it took him years to get there, as they were so far ahead. You don't like to hear it, obviously, but it did benefit Novak to have come into his own later in this era. Let's face it: the Nole Slam came when his 2 chief rivals weren't much there to counter him. And I think we've all agreed that the otherwise competition is not so much, even now. We keep waiting for it, and it keeps not happening.
