Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,778
- Reactions
- 14,946
- Points
- 113
I appreciate your taking Rafa's argument on this. Particularly in the question of "dominance," which as you may remember I have been arguing for a long time. The question of weeks at #1 is dominance to many, which I get, as in over the field and over the year, but, as you say, how is Rafa's dominance on clay not an overriding feature of him? There is no one in the men's or women's game, in singles, that matches it, or comes close.Rafa is really tricky, because while I agree with you that his resume has some "imbalance"--most especially the lack of even one YEC, and 100+ fewer weeks at #1--the clay dominance sets him apart as singular, in a way that Roger and Novak are not.
Look at it this way: have you ever seen a better, more dominant player than Rafa on clay? Meaning, how is the answer to the question, "Who is the most dominant player ever?" not "Rafa on clay?"
Obviously clay is only one-third of the calendar year. Hards are even more common, and grass (unfortunately) less so (I envision a tour in which each surface has a more even distribution, and this isn't only my allegiance to Federer...just imagine how many Masters he'd have if three were held on grass). But my point is, Rafa on clay is easily the most potent player-court type combination in tennis history, so much so that it has to factor into a conversation about GOAT.
It is also strange that you cite numbers on one hand, yet then presumably rank Borg and Sampras above Novak and Federer, both of whom have far greater accomplishments than those two (Rafa, as well) - and were also more well-rounded, at least than Pete with his clay deficiencies. Meaning, if you bag on Rafa for "imbalance," why not bag on Pete?
As you also point out, most of the other 3/4 of the year is played on HCs, so when your two biggest rivals excel on the dominant surface, well, that makes it harder. I'm sorry to reiterate this, but it seems that @Fiero425 needs to be reminded, that Rafa has won 7 Majors on HC and Grass. He so nonchalantly says that Nadal "only" won 2 Wimbledons. Well, those 7 Majors would still have Rafa in the top 10 Majors winners of men in the Open Era. And he has 9 MS on HCs, and 2 other grass titles. Plus the Olympic gold medal was won on HC. If he'd never won a title on clay, he'd still be considered amongst the top players on HC and grass, by titles. I know you like to remind us folks around here of the rarified times we've been living in the past 2 decades, and it does bear reminding.