Djokovic has case for men’s tennis GOAT
Friday's French Open semifinal between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal was drawing tweets — from Chris Evert, for one — suggesting it might be the greatest match ever played. As the third set raged, the estimable talent in NBC'S booth, John Mcenroe and Mary Carillo, were starting to think like Chrissie. Greatest. Match. Ever. Seriously?
The sport has been played for 500 years. Even Cher, a noted Nadal superfan hasn't been around for that long. It's possible that there was a greater match played sometime over the past five centuries. Maybe even two.
This can be said: The third set of Djokovic-nadal — 97 minutes of some of the most awesome artillery ever unleased — can be nominated for Greatest Set Ever. It was certainly compelling theater, played in front of one of the most boisterous crowds (of only 5,000) ever seen at the French Open. It was like the Lindbergh landing.
By the time Djokovic finished off Nadal
6-2 in an anticlimactic fourth set, the match had slipped into the range of 137th-greatest ever played. Its historical importance, however, is undeniable:
Djokovic handed Nadal his third loss, ever, on the red clay of Roland Garros; Djokovic thwarted Nadal's chance to add to his record number of French Open titles
(he was going for No. 14); Djokovic waylaid Nadal's best chance to pass Roger Federer and take the all-time lead in Grand Slam tournament victories with 21.
That's heavy stuff.
The Spanish Bull's clay-court records might stand forever. The legend of his tenaciousness will live nearly as long. Yet, when he cut the tape off his left ankle at the start of the fourth set — thus informing an international television audience that he wasn't 100 percent, and building in an excuse for his subsequent meltdown — I muttered, “Bah.”
Sunday's final between No. 1 seed Djokovic and No. 5 seed Stefanos Tsitsipas did not reach the same fever pitch, but it had just as much wicked topspin on it. Djokovic came from two sets down against a younger, better-rested opponent and pounded the will out of the lad. Those who were watching had to wonder ...
Are we looking at the greatest male tennis player of all time?
I think Federer is the most talented player who has ever drawn breath and, if not for the small hole in his game (high backhand) he'd have won more than one French Open. He might have 23 or 24 Grand Slams. He'd be right there with Margaret Court and Serena Williams.
Nadal thinks he's the greatest. His multitude of fans think he is the greatest. Two thirds of his Grand Slams have come on clay. Bah.
Does anyone really like Djokovic? His game has the subtlety of a blast furnace. The most creative shot he ever hit was when he struck a line judge in the throat at last year's U.S. Open. Off the court, he has long strived to prove that he is not the smartest man in the world, and he has succeeded.
I'm not a fan, but .. . by golly, after Sunday, the Djoker has a strong case for GMOAT. He does. He went through Rafa on French clay to become the first man to secure two career Grand Slams in the Open era. Those two claims, coupled in one sentence, have the atomic weight of uranium.
Three athletes representing the modern, athletic peak of the game's evolution have combined to win 59 of the past 70 Grand Slam tournaments. Federer has 20 Grand Slam titles, Nadal 20 and Djokovic 19. And if you're betting who will get to 21, or beyond, the smart money is on the Djoker, the youngest of the group at age 34.
Djokovic has spent the past 325 weeks (a record) as the No. 1 player in the world. Is he better than Federer, 39, on grass? No. Is he better than Federer on hardcourts? Maybe. Is he better than Nadal, 35, on clay? No, but he has handed Rafa two of his three losses in Paris.
Does being the best of this era make Djoker the greatest of all eras? Nobody can be sure. But it's fun to talk about.
Rod Laver was ineligible to play in major tournaments in the five years prior to the Open era, which began in 1968. How many more majors would he have won? He had two Grand Slam years — as an amateur in 1962 and as a pro in 1969. He was (and is) 5 feet 8, and I'm not sure how he'd fare with a graphite/composite racquet against a modern athlete. Not well, methinks. Same thing with Ken Rosewall.
If you are a child of the 1970s, you grew up with Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg and Mcenroe playing a game that was still recognizable to Laver and Rosewall, and against fields that were more dangerous. One can only imagine a neutral-surface U.S. Open with those five, plus Pete Sampras and today's three titans — all in their primes, all using wood racquets.
Throw Bill Tilden in there, too. It'd be like a Harry Potter movie. Does Djoker win?
I'm betting on Federer and hedging with Pancho Gonzales.
marace@dispatch.com