(by Nathan Vens)
This Sunday was a super Sunday for a sportsfan. Just like that other super surreal Sunday last summer. For whatever reason I take pride in sporting accomplishments that aren’t mine. I also take pride that man has been able to go to the moon, and I will do so again when she goes to Mars. I wasn’t born when Apollo 11 flew, and I am no rocket scientist now. In case you haven’t guessed, I am no sportsperson either. Oh, I play, but as people say, just for fun, and also to remind my toes to stay ahead of the tummy.
I was proud of myself yesterday for another reason. An investment I had made. An emotional investment in two real sportspersons,made fifteen years ago. Back then I had a group of friends. Here’s the thing about friends and sports. You’re either for their guy or you’re against them. I chose against. Twice, I tossed all my chips to 20 year olds for no apparent reason other than a possible visceral vicarious pleasure of beating my friends. At that time I didnt even know what I would be beating them at. I would learn later that the game’s called Who’s the G.O.A.T (Greatest of All Time)? That’s the thing, I don’t ever think much before making a big emotional investment. Not ever. I might spend a few months thinking about what wireless modem I need. But deciding whom to spend my life with? That took all of 5 minutes and even that is a generous estimate. Its the split second decisions that have paid the biggest dividends. Like on Sunday.
When I first watched a full NBA basketball game, I was 22. Lebron James was only 19. He had already been anointed “The Chosen One” by the media. But back then, no basketball fan worth his weight in salt would ever seriously suggest that someone could be the next Michael Jordan. Not ever. But my knowledge of Jordan and the NBA at that point was just hearsay. The only time I had watched him play was in Space Jam. I was told he had an aura of invincibility. Well, it was invisible to me. On that day, I saw James make every play in a come from behind victory, and I was blown away. And in the bliss of my naivete, I proclaimed with absolutely no foundation that James would become the best basketball player ever. The rest of my friends glared in silence. And then they laughed. That point I knew, I was going to have James’s back for the rest of his sporting life.
Tennis, I’ve been watching since I was 7. Now that I think of it, I had GOAT fights even as a kid. My friends liked Sampras back then. I loved Agassi. Agassi taught me the most important lesson in sports. And life. When you decide to be with somebody forever, they will make you want to kill yourself, but it will be worth it. Like that night in 2005 against James Blake in the quarter final of the US Open. A rudderless ride I thought I could never experience again. Turns out, I was wrong, and more on that later. My first Fedal match was the Miami Open finals in 2005. Federer had already been anointed the Chosen One. My friends were visibly floored by the flamboyance of Federer’s forehand. I mean, who wasn’t? And Nadal was only 19. He fought and fought, valiantly, and lost the match. But he won me. Forever.
No one ever doubted the brilliance of Nadal or James. But on court brilliance doesn’t win you GOAT battles. You will be thrown a statistic that somehow succinctly summarizes the superiority of one guy over the other. Nadal had fewer slams. James has fewer rings. Me, I counted heartbreaks. Like the summer of 2007. A heartbreak of hysterical proportions. Nadal was yet to win Wimbledon, and James had never won a Conference Finals. In June, James had led his franchise to their first ever championship finals, only to lose in straight games to the San Antonio Spurs who won their 4th NBA championship. Barely a month after that, in a heartbreaking Wimbledon final, Nadal took the game to its final set only to be blown away by Federer who won his 5th Wimbledon title. Forget about GOAT. James was a king without a ring, and Nadal an idol cast in clay.
Nadal or James never made it easy. But sports isn’t meant to be easy. Unless you’re the Australian women’s cricket team. Boy, could they use some defeat if for no other reason than to empathize with the rest of the sporting world.
GOAT battles are played forever. So if you sign up for one, you better learn to hunker down after heartbreaks. Sometimes even for five years. Thats how long it took James since that summer defeat to finally step into the ring of Champions. Thankfully, Nadal needed only one. In July of 2008, the rudderless ride returned with a vengeance. Nadal fought and fought and fought, and with Federer’s streak, he tossed every last shred of doubt that he deserved to be there. After that, GOAT battles went off court, and into calculators.
You know, numbers are nice. Love them or hate them, they don’t care. And in sports, one number counts more than anything. Age.
On Sunday, James and Nadal called the bluff on that one. James was older than every other starting player in the NBA finals lineup, and Nadal was older than every other French Open quarter-finalist. That’s the thing about GOATs. They’re like whiskeys. As some wiser than I have said, “the best get better with age” and “Some whiskeys just happen to be better than others.”
Ultimately, GOAT battles are not really about victory and defeat, or who’s better and who’s not. They’re about love. That undying love for your champion. Even when the chips are down. Especially when the chips are down. Its easy to love Federer. Someone once said, if you take the fraternity of sports champions, and intersect it with the fraternity of folks who always say the right thing and do the nice thing, the only people we will end up with are Rahul Dravid and Roger Federer. Its not that the other guys aren’t nice. Somehow there’s this “coolness” associated with being cool and composed. All the freaking time. Instead, if you’re the kind who fist pumps when your opponent double faults, then in comparison you become less “sportive”.
Its easy to love Jordan too. For different reasons. He is so firmly established in the pantheon of greatness. He’s never going to lose another game. But God forbid, if you are a champion who worships Jordan but still think you can displace him. Then every lost game is a victory for the established. And if you lose a championship? Hell breaks loose in a stampede of I told you so’s.
Its really for the lost games that I am a sports fan. Its the one time I know my champion is human. I can feel that pain which I know will make the next victory that much sweeter. Like this super super sweet Sunday. As George Costanza might say, “There are days you just want to go down on your knees and thank the heavens that you have access to high speed Internet”.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Srinivas R
October 16, 2020
Thanks for the shout to the Aussie women in Cricket. Absolute monsters they are. I dont follow NBA or Tennis much but aware of James from his Cleveland Cavalier hearbreak days so thrilled for him. Nadal is an inspiration just for fighting along for so long.
LikeLike
Enigma
October 17, 2020
Federer is the GOAT, it is just not the numbers alone but also aesthetics. There is a not a more beautiful sight in tennis than a Federer backhand or for that matter any of his strokes. And even when it comes down to numbers he has six year end ATP final titles to Nadal’s nine. Also Nadal has won 65% of his majors in one surface. The guy is lucky to be in twenty – he had a free ride in last year’s and 2017’s US open tournaments. Federer is the GOAT, Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time.
LikeLike
Madan
October 17, 2020
As a long time tennis watcher, amateur player and somebody who’s a fan of Fed (but not only Fed) from 2003 and before that Sampras, Agassi, etc, I think Nadal sealed the deal last Sunday. Some will still quibble he needs no. 21 but does anybody seriously doubt he would get it next RG, lol? The destruction of Djokocovid, sorry Djokovic, this time was epic and put paid to suggestions that Nadal would stop winning slams before Djokovic. That, of course, could still happen but as Fed had his reign at the top, Nadal’s reign starts about now. A favourable H2H against Fed plus absolute domination of one slam to a level not attained by anybody else tip him over Fed for now. And if last Sunday was any indication, he would add a couple more or so to the record before he is done. His DTL forehand and backhand were BOTH working in tandem and he was crushing the CC backhand which, all put together, had him wrongfooting Djokovic repeatedly and made it difficult for the latter to beat him in the rallies. I see little chance, then, for the rest to stop Nadal at RG. All hail!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nathan
October 17, 2020
Srinivas: They are monsters, man! Totally deserve their aura of dominance!
Enigma: C‘mon, dude! There are many reasons for Nadal to be where he is, but “luck” is the least of them!
Madan: Right now in any slam, Djokovic is the player to beat, and for Nadal to destroy him, in a final no less, is truly epic! And yeah, going by this year’s French Open, Nadal is the player to beat at RG for a few more years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Enigma
October 18, 2020
@Madan, I beg to differ, even if Nadal gets to 21 and beyond, his lopsided record – absolute dominance at RG vis-a-vis 7 in the other three slams – and his disastrous record at the tour finals means that he can never be the GOAT. He is the clay court GOAT, no doubt about that. Also, it is extremely unfair of RG to have gone ahead with this year’s slam with all that is happening. I would strike this year’s US and French opens if the record books.
@Nathan, come on man. Nadal would have lost to Federer at the 17 US Open and to either Djokovic or Fed in 19. He was extremely lucky that he had a easy run in these two slams.
LikeLike
Nathan
October 18, 2020
Enigma In the 2019 US open Federer lost in the quarterfinals, Nadal won the quarters, semis and finals. The same way that Nadal lost in the 2009 French Open SF, and Federer went on to win that championship, without which his GOAT credentials would be on mighty shaky ground. If Lady Luck really played with Dmitrov in 2019 US then she sure as hell played with Soderling in 2009 French.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enigma
October 18, 2020
@Nathan, Federer owned Nadal in the 2017 season. He used to beat him for fun. Had Federer not been injured he would won the whole bloody tournament that year. Within a month of the US Open finals Federer beat Nadal at the Shanghai masters.
Also, do not forget Federer made it to 5 RG finals and 3 other semis, would have atleast 5 French Open titles in any other era. Nadal also benifitted from Wimbledon changing the type grass and the balls used, thereby considerably slowing down the courts. Nadal wouldn’t have come anywhere near the Wimbledon finals had they continued to play on the faster courts. I repeat Nadal is extremely lucky to be on 20, I don’t deny that he is the greatest clay court player ever. But there is only one GOAT.
LikeLike
Nathan
October 18, 2020
there is only one GOAT
Oh, the number of ways in which I disagree with that statement!
You have your GOAT, I have mine. They’ve played each other 40 times, 24 times in finals and 14 times in grand slams. You need to have a real lucky knife to slice the H2H in any of those to get only one GOAT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
October 18, 2020
“his lopsided record – absolute dominance at RG vis-a-vis 7 in the other three slams – and his disastrous record at the tour finals means that he can never be the GOAT” – It isn’t really as lopsided as often made out. He has four US Opens, just one short of Fed and one more than Djokovic. I mean, on a hard court slam, he has a better record than the hard court king and we still have to hear about this so called lopsidedness. Plus two Wimbledons, including one against a younger and better Federer than the one Djokovic beat in 2014, 15 or 18. Nadal has also been in losing AO finals, two of them being grueling five set losses. How many five set RG finals has Fed contested? None. Same with Djokovic, who did push Nadal to five in the semi once.
So rather than lopsided, it is that Nadal is better on HC/grass than Fedovic at clay and WAY better on clay than they are at grass/HC. When Fed fans talk about slam distribution, they forget that the transition from grass to HC, especially medium/fast HC, has always been easier than clay to grass. Fedovic simply have more opportunities to pick up slams with a game oriented towards grass/HC. Let’s say you took away one of the HC slams and made it just three, one for each surface. Nadal’s distribution suddenly wouldn’t look so lopsided anymore.
As for YEC, yes, his record is un-stellar to put it mildly though far from disastrous (been in two finals, again) but that is offset by more Masters than Federer and an Olympic singles gold. Add to that the H2H and Fed doesn’t really have a tiebreaker anymore. Unless you buy the slam distribution argument and I don’t. All four slams are the most competitive and prestigious events in tennis and are equally tough to win in general. Nadal’s ‘lopsided’ record only indicates a level of domination on the clay slam that Fedovic could never muster in their pet slams (Wimbledon for Fed and AO for Djokovic).
LikeLike
Jai
October 18, 2020
☺️ I was wondering how long it would take after the Final for the debates to gain steam again, it’s less than a week now. Not bad.
Enigma: I admire your absolute belief in a single GOAT. Sorry, but whatever way I try to interpret and cherry pick the criteria, it always seems to me that we are lucky enough to be living through an era which has 3 giants of the game. I say this as predominantly a Nadal fan, who has also grown to immensely admire Novak – and can accept that Federer has the most complete, aesthetically pleasing game of the 3.
Now, we all can have – and do have- our own favorites, but to claim one’s favourite is the uncontested, absolute, no-debates-are-logical best is, well……are those blinkers on sale on Amazon this weekend perchance? 😜
Madan – Interesting take, but despite being more of a Nadal fan, I have to accept that the fact he lost 4 HC matches to Fed in 2017 does cut against him. He very well can win a couple more RGs, but the GOAT debate will still (IMO) remain open. There will always be points cited about his lack of tour final titles and lesser weeks at No.1, and that he’s won 65% of his slams on one surface.
Novak has had a very rough year….and frankly I feel the DQ in the USO was way too harsh. A game penalty (which would have cost him the first set), would have been the apt decision there. It almost certainly robbed him of a title, neither Zverev nor Thiem in NY showed any form that could have possibly toppled him.
So let’s wait to see how the next 2–3 years go, before we insist on annointing one of the 3, and “settling” the debate. Who knows, if Novak himself touches/crosses 20 GS, his more even distribution of slams, and other criteria like year end no.1 finishes and Tour final titles, and lead in Masters 1000 titles, might very well be points in his favour. One thing which a lot of his detractors point out against him is his “metronomic” game, but Madan, as I’m sure you’ll agree as you play the game yourself, that relentless consistency and accuracy is bloody hard to achieve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
October 19, 2020
“One thing which a lot of his detractors point out against him is his “metronomic” game, but Madan, as I’m sure you’ll agree as you play the game yourself, that relentless consistency and accuracy is bloody hard to achieve.” – Absolutely. I don’t say metronomic when I watch Novak hit a super-early return. My jaw drops, period. Tennis is unique in that regard that the disparity between the way those who don’t play the game and those who do is enormous. I think the helicopter view camera angle is most responsible for this. If watchers generally got to see a court level view, they would get a better feel for the power, pace and spin of the shot and how well or not it is timed and would focus less on the ‘aesthetics’. Frankly, when you see court level, you find the players look a lot more alike than from the overhead view. Even the power and pace they hit at is closely matched, so much smaller margins actually separate Fedalovic from the others than people think.
LikeLike
Enigma
October 20, 2020
“He has four US Opens, just one short of Fed and one more than Djokovic.” @ Madan, I think that Nadal was very lucky to receive an easy draw and face an even easier opponent in the finals in 2017. In 2019 again, Federer and Djokovic were in the same side of the draw. 4 US Opens for Nadal is two too many. As regards 2008 Wimbledon, Federer was not 100% fit, recovering from mononucleosis. In 2010 too, he was on the wane and Djokovic was still developing his game.
Nadal is also lucky that there are not many good clay courters around, while Federer and Djokovic face a strong filed in the hardcourts. Compare the situation with the 90s when there heaps of Spaniards and South Americans slugging away from the baseline on clay courts. His luckiest break was the pandemic which led to Wimbledon cancelling this year’s tournament. Who knows, Federer may have 21 by now had Wimbledon been played. I think that it is quite unfair that Wimbledon was cancelled this year.
@ Jai, I agree, we are lucky to live in the era of these three greats.
LikeLike
Madan
October 20, 2020
Enigma: The reasoning about draws and opponents would backfire badly when applied to Fed looking at who all he beat in his 2004-07 peak. Um, Baghdatis in an Australian Open final? OTOH Nadal has beaten prime Djokovic in a hard court slam final (USO 2013), something Fed has yet to do.
LikeLike
Enigma
October 20, 2020
@ Madan, Federer was so good in his prime, 2004-07, that otherwise excellent players (Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian) were made to look ordinary. In any other era, these players would have finished up with multiple slams, but Federer was so dominant during this period that they couldn’t make much of an impact. I would give you AO 2006 and Baghdatis though. Because of his absolute dominance it appears that Federer had an easy run in that period, but I don’t think that is the case.
And Djokovic was struggling in the second half of 2013 – lost in straight sets to Murray in Wimbledon 2013 if you remember- he was not the beast that he would become in 2015 – 16. Federer would at least take a set off Djokovic regularly even when he was in the beast mode unlike Nadal who was pummelled in AO 2019.
LikeLike
Madan
October 20, 2020
Enigma: This is a never ending discussion and my short point is we don’t quite know what would happen if Fed was regularly meeting Nadalovic at the slams. I tend not to assume for sure that his tally would go down. But that is also the reason why I don’t evaluate draws to make up lines between the players. I think all three of them are beyond that, their greatness has to be taken for granted now. So, and this is purely my take, I always chided Nadalovic fans for trying to make up new yardsticks to pronounce their respective favourite the greatest even before they had caught up with Fed. By the same token, now that Nadal has matched Fed’s slam tally, I am not going to argue the case anymore. 20 is 20. I can understand holding onto a co-GOAT status for now and until Nadal gets to 21. But he will, sooner or later at the RG, if not before that.
LikeLike