That's a bit soft-pedaling it, don't you think? It's not like it's been done by lesser greats. It does speak to a kind of superiority over the competition, particularly at a Bo5 Majors event. And surely it could be broadened out surrounding those Major wins w/o dropping a set to see other events where they hadn't, either. Nadal on clay, for sure.
Call it what you will, I just don't find it particularly meaningful in the way that Nadalfan2013--and seemingly you and Kieran--
want it to be meaningful. For one, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know: Rafa was amazing on clay, and especially at Roland Garros (all four were at RG). We knew this.
Another problem with considering it among serious criteria of greatness: It has happened so few times, and those who have done it barely did it at all. In other words, it is more of a freak statistical anomaly than a meaningful data point, because it is so rare.
What it tells us is that Rafa--on his best surface and at his best tournament--was hugely dominant, in an unparalleled way. But again, we already knew this. I think most will agree that "Rafa on clay" is the best surface-player combo in tennis history (aside from the few Borg, Roger, Novak diehards). You know I've said as much.
But again, this is old news, and doesn't really address "dominance" in a meaningful or new way. And of course the key point: dominance has to be about more than just clay, and more than just every once in awhile, and more than just one tournament.
So again, the stat
illustrates Rafa's dominance on clay and at Roland Garros. It provides a different angle on what we already knew. But it doesn't in any way push him higher up or add to his legacy or, more to Nadalfan2013's endless quest, diminish Novak in any way. Novak is the greatest hard courter of all time (that is, the Open Era), but he wasn't as dominant as Rafa on clay. I don't think anyone is making a serious argument for that (and if they were to, I'd be just as happy to disagree with them and defend Rafa as the "surface/context GOAT" all day long).
Absolutely agreed. It's sports...what you want is the win. And the ultimate win, in the title. That's why I question the Elo. As you say, reaching Slam finals, etc., matters, but being a constant bridesmaid is not the same as besting the field in big moments.
Well again, Elo isn't the Grail - but it highlights some things well that other stats don't. I'm not Jeff Sackmann, who seems to think Elo trumps all. But I also don't need it to encapsulate everything to be useful. No stat encapsulates everything, at least in a way that negates the need for other stats or different perspectives.
I mean, I have questions about GOAT points, but the nice thing about them is that they include pretty much everything: Elo, ATP rankings, titles, good results at bigger tournaments, various accomplishment records, even H2H matchups and meaningful wins. So you get a shotgun approach that doesn't leave much of anything out. The problem is more that by including everything, it smoothes subtleties out. It also "double counts" stuff in a way; for instance, by including ATP ranking and tournament points, you're essentially doubling up. This is why I like to consider the parts separately, and then see how they look together.
When assessing dominance, I mainly look at three factors: Elo, good results at tournaments (Slam QF or better, Masters SF or better, Tour Final match wins, Olympic medals, 500 Wins and Finals, and 250 Wins), as well as another stat that I thunk up that I don't see anyone else use, which essentially boils down to
actual ATP points earned divided by
possible ATP points earned (i.e. If a player ends a year with 10,000 ATP points and played in events worth a total of 15,000 ATP points, they receive a 67% in this stat...meaning, they won 67% of the total points they could have won...which is great - one of the ten best all-time. The record for this is, of course, Novak in 2015 when he won 88% of his possible ATP points...just an absurd figure, if you think about it).
Yes, but so many love to claim that Nadal is very defense-first. And he definitely does what you claim that Novak does: look for weaknesses and adjust. Rafa and Novak are not massively dissimilar, which is why their matches have never had the appeal of the Fedal one. Not enough yin-yang.
I hear what you are saying, but to be honest I've always loved Rafa-Novak matches and enjoyed them from a pure tennis fan perspective more than Fedal or Fedkovic, but that's probably mostly due to not having a dog in the fight and just being able to sit back and enjoy the match. And while I agree that yin-yang is evocative, I also like seeing the two best at a roughly similar style of play duke it out. I suppose the Federer equivalent would have been seeing him face peak Sampras, which would have been glorious to behold.
Kieran's comment above made me think of something that
@nehmeth used to say about Djokovic fans going on the "Nolecoaster." He's been known to go walkabout, mentally, for a set. He's still got 22 Majors, and I do agree with you the end result is the final answer. But with such supposed domination over the tour available to him, and a "Décima" in Oz, it's surprising, to me, at least, that he never won a Major without dropping a set. He may have a couple more Majors in him, but, with the state of the youngsters, and his age, I doubt it will happen. Not a huge ding, but a point worth making.
Well again, see my point above. As dominant as Novak was at the AO, the margins--while large--were still narrower than Rafa at Roland Garros. Everyone's were, in any place. Or we can compare:
Novak at AO:92-8 (92%), 10 titles
Rafa at RG: 112-3 (97.4%), 14 titles
I should probably look at up set record at those events, but I don't know how to do a search for that. But the above gives the picture.
