PARIS — Mystery is the spice of sports. Tennis is hardly an exception. And one of the game’s juicier quandaries relates to the old GOAT issue: the who is the greatest player of all time question.
These days there is not much debate. Raj – with his record 16 Slams on all surfaces, 23 straight Slam semis and what seems to be like 503 years at No. 1 – is the widely accepted consensus, except for Sampras or Laver true-believers.
But there is one little problem. It’s a bronze-skinned, narrative-denying Marjocan named Rafa. You see, Nadal sought of owns Fed these days. He’s got a 14-7 record over the Swiss, has “W’s” over Roger on all surfaces (even though ten of them are on clay. He beat him fairly handily the last time out in Madrid and has prevailed in six of their last seven matches. Plus, he has six more Masters Series 1000 titles then Fed.
So the question is: if Roger is the best of all time, how come he has a losing record against his prime rival? Can you contend that the best of all time, somehow is not the best of his era? If so, how can that be?
Few want to deal with the question. Most of all, Rafa himself, who has spent most of his career in the No. 2 slot in the rankings, just below Fed.
Nadal – who is a player who has always been handled very carefully – has always been completely deferential to Federer, almost to a fault. Time and again, Rafa justifiably gushes (with a hint of awe) how amazing Fed is, how he is the best ever and how his records will never be broken.
Fair enough. Still, a little question lingers Rafa. Hey Rafa, how come you have such a great record against Roger?
Few want to deal with the question, most of all Nadal. It’s not just that the 23-year old is not prone (at least when speaking English) to wrestle with deep think quandaries. It’s not just that Nadal is not a modest lad and well trained. Most of all, the Spaniard loves to play from the shadows as the underdog, nipping at the ankles of the great and mighty King. It takes the pressure off when you are going up against the anointed one.
Still, tennis wonks know the stats and I simply wanted Nadal to reflect on the meaning of his head to head supremacy. I knew of the substantial danger. Basically, Rafa would NEVER say he was better than Raj. Still I felt someone had to ask the question.
As usual, I was more curious then deferential and thought, why not moi? If you don’t ask, you’ll never know.
So late last night, after Rafa had dismissed Lleyton Hewitt, when I was virtually the only English-speaking reporter in a room with 40 Spanish journalists, the moderater asked the usual question to open a press conference: “Questions in English, please.”
Never mind that Rafa is THE man to beat at RG, as the presser started, for a fleeting moment an imposing silence descended. Nobody was asking a question. If I didn’t have the guts to jump in and ask my question, the opportunity would go away. Rafa’s future press conferences, deep into the tournament, promised to be chaotic, not that reflective zoos.
So I plunged in and asked my provocative, oh-so-dangerous question.
It was quite a journey. Here is how it went, warts and all.
Q: I have a different question for you. Everyone in tennis loves Roger, respects Roger. He is said to be the best of all time. Yet two out of every three times you play him, you win. You’ve won six of the last seven times. Who’s a better player?
RAFAEL NADAL: You like this. You are focused on the Roger thing, eh? (laughter.) … If somebody says I am better than Roger, I think this person don’t know nothing about tennis. That’s my answer.
Q: How so?
RN: Why?
Q: Yeah.
RN: So you don’t know nothing about tennis. You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It’s no comparison. So that’s the answer. Is difficult to compare Roger with me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams; I have 6. Masters 1000, yeah, I have more than him. But for the rest of the things ‑‑ the records of Roger is very, very — almost impossible to improve.
Q: Still, it is interesting when you step out on the court…
RN: (Through translation.) Sorry, I interrupt you. What’s the question? Sorry.
Q: The question is: Still, for the fans, it is interesting when you step on the court with him, you usually win.
RN: Well, I am No. 2 in the world for five years, so I think I am a good player, too. Sure, I can beat him. No. 2 can beat No. 1. That’s the thing. It’s not a lot of difference between No. 2 and No. 1 or between No. 1 and No. 10. That’s the tennis, and the tennis very close, the level, all the time. But I can beat him, yes. The same time, the thing is I beat him a lot of times on clay. I beat him on other surfaces, too. But the most of the times I beat him on clay, so I played with him more times on clay than on the rest of the surfaces. The next day, I speak with Bud Collins who feels you can’t really compare players of different eras because the equipment, the schedules and conditions change so much, so you have to go era to era. Collins’ picks off the top of his (long hair-less) head are: Tilden, Budge, Kramer and Laver in the old days and now Federer, despite his record against Rafa. Then he reminds me, that not unlike Federer, Laver had a lot of trouble with his rival Ken Rosewall.
Go figure. The curious (fly in the ointment) contradiction of the greatest player of all time having a losing record against his prime opponent continues. One of tennis’ great contradictions still stands, a wondrous mystery unsolved.
