At the risk of repeating myself (so save your breath,) look at what you wrote above, and think of it from another perspective. Novak and Roger's HC records are greater, and it isn't that close. But Rafa is top 6, at least, you say. Well, he was contemporaneous with Federer and Djokovic, and sandwiched in the middle, as we have discussed. There are only so many titles to go around, plus, it has been a bit "two against one." I agree they're better on HCs, esp. indoor HCs, but the spread across which he had to play them certainly diminished his HC achievements. In the one year he sort of had "to himself," 2010, he retired out of the AO injured, (to Murray, if memory serves, who lost to Roger in the final,) he went on to win the other 3 Majors, including his first US Open, which many thought he'd never win. (Many Nadal fans, at least secretly, included. I will demure on that.)
I agree 100%, which is similar to my view of Roger on clay. Roger made 5 RG finals...that's as many as Wilander, Lendl, and Vilas, and only fewer than Rafa, Borg, and Novak. That's a very select clay company.
Being #3-6 ever on hards is no small potatoes. As you said, if Novak and Roger weren't around, he probably would have won more on hards, and maybe even have been the greatest HC player of the Open Era, or at least seriously been in the running.
I agree that Roger has been underrated by some on clay. (Not least of which, let's face it, were Federer fans, who loved to call it his "worst surface," which I think was a fannish reaction to how he'd done v. Nadal. "Least successful" would have been a less-biased way to put it.) Of course he was great on clay. With that footwork? But he really did slide like a clay courter, and adjusted his rally-tolerance to clay. He wasn't just a brilliant player who managed well on the dirt.
See my comment above. I know that the 2009 RG was one of the most meaningful to Roger, though I'm guessing he would have loved to beat Rafa there. In truth, we have to give Novak accolades for beating Rafa in 2021 at RG. The 2015 match counts, obviously, but Rafa was not his usual self. Rafa wasn't quite as good in 2021 as he was at his very best, but he was still really, really good (and Novak had also dropped a half step). So Novak gets props for that. At the least, that loss is less controversial than 2009's loss to Soderling. I don't remember Rafa being hurt in 2021, though I also can't quite remember how Novak pulled it off. I suppose the margins were just small then, vs at other times.
Actually, here's a stat - players who have even won a single set vs. Rafa at Roland Garros, with their set record:
Novak: 11-24
Roger: 4-18
Soderling: 3-4
Auger-Aliassime: 2-3
Isner: 2-3
Schwartzman: 2-6
Brands: 1-3
Ferrer: 1-3
Goffin: 1-3
Grosjean: 1-3
Klizan: 1-3
Mathieu: 1-3
Puerta: 1-3
Sock 1-3
Thiem: 1-3
Hewitt: 1-9
A lot of those were early on (Grosjean, Puerta, Hewitt's single won set).
BTW, what's with the Daniel Brands moment?! That was the first round of 2013, what i consider Rafa's best year. I do remember him starting slow, though, but I think by RG he was at full power.
Yes, Rafa is inarguably the GOAT on clay, and that isn't even close. But the clay is 1/3 of the year, grass barely anything, and HCs the rest. And Nadal had to fend off both Roger and Novak numerous times, all by his lonesome. To take the other side on that, given how much HC is on offer, sure, Rafa would look better on HC than Roger or Novak on clay. But it wasn't like he was poaching small tournaments, or not winning beating Roger and Novak on HC, including at 3 Major finals.
Again, I agree. You don't need to defend Rafa's greatness on hards. That's kind of my point - that him having a record as good as the two best hard court players of all time isn't a slight. Not at all. But I do think you make good arguments that he could have been third. I might give the edge to Pete, though, and rank them Novak, Roger, Pete, Rafa, Lendl, Agassi (I'd rank Lendl over Agassi without much research, because I think he had tougher competition and a lot of Agassi's hardcourt wins were in the weak late 90s/early 00s).
I honestly believe how hard you try to present stats for discussion, and without prejudice, and I know you've caught more that a little
for it, including from your "tribesmen." (Oh, I've been dying to use that emoji.)
This thread is actually about Novak, which I keep trying to bring it back to. I know the source put you off, and you may be finished with the original question, but please don't think that most of us consider it just an opportunity to salivate over Rafa's achievements. We already have a thread for that.
Thanks! Just to address one point, this is also why I'm not very tribal. It is not that I feel no connection to fellow Federer fans, but it is more of a resonance and shared feeling than an allegiance. Fedfan was just as onerous to me as fanboys of other players, in some ways more so because he couldn't hear what I was saying in good faith, with the whole closet Novak/Rafa fan. I mean,
really?!
Anyhow,as for Novak and not winning a Slam without dropping a set, I did address this up thread. But in summary:
1. His defensive style, and his general pattern of play: assess the opponent, learn the pattern of play and weaknesses, then apply pressure at key moments. I've seen Novak utterly dominate a match, but less frequently than Roger or Rafa, both of whom seem to have had more 'runaway victories.' Not sure if that is statistically true, but it feels true from an eyeball/memory perspective.
2. He wasn't as dominant, even on hards, as Rafa was on clay. He was great everywhere, but Rafa on clay is on a different level. But this also relates to the second point: within a given match, his margins seem to be smaller. I've seen Rafa and Roger play more matches where there was no doubt that they'd win, from the very beginning. Novak seems to coast more, at least at first, and even fall behind more frequently. But again, more research should be done to see if this is actually true.
That second point is inseparable from Rafa, who has those 4 Slams largely because of his clay greatness (they were all at RG, unsurprisingly).
So I don't really see it as surprising that Novak hasn't done it, more of a statistical quirk. It isn't surprising because it is rare to begin with, and because of how he plays, and because the guy who did it four times was the "surface GOAT" by a good margin.
