Thanks again. On the point of Federer’s place amongst the all-time greats, let me make myself a little clearer. I don’t, for one moment, doubt his place in such a list. And you’re right, his victory over Djokovic in the semifinal reaffirms his place in the pantheon. My only complaint is against people labelling Federer as THE Greatest of all time, which I think is unfair on Sampras, Borg, etc., and in any event an exercise on those lines can only be futile.

On the point concerning Nadal’s greatness, I sometimes think its not necessary to make a host of finals but to ensure that when you do get there, you make it count. And Nadal has done that both at the Australian Open and the US Open. As for the point on him losing to the likes of del Potro (and often a hammering at that), its well made. Federer rarely gets undone in such a manner and even his loss, for instance, to Safin at the Australian Open came after an intense battle, which on another day could have resulted in a Federer victory. But the same ‘some reason’ which you say for Federer and Borg losing in the finals of the French and the US respectively can equally be applied to Nadal. He for ‘some reason’ manages to win on those big occasions. That in itself is a feature of his greatness.

Ya comparing across eras is almost impossible making any exercise of determining the greatest player of all time futile. Disagree, though on the point of numbers to an extent. Let’s say Djokovic in the years to come defeats Nadal many times and goes on to enjoy a superior head-to-head record, but fails to win more than another 2 Grand Slam titles, then he will not have an indisputable claim to greatness. I think its a combination of factors and numbers will also have to play a role. At the moment, I guess Nadal ticks most boxes.

Thanks for your comment. I get your argument that their respective peaks, perhaps, do not quite match. But that said, I would argue, first, that Federer’s peak did coincide briefly with Nadal’s rise (2007-08), a period in which Nadal dominated their meetings. Agreed, most of them were on clay, but it was domination nonetheless. Second, their meetings in Grand Slam finals is telling. Federer has never beaten Nadal at Roland Garros (admittedly played on a surface that suits Nadal), but Nadal has defeated Federer in the final of both Wimbledon and the Australian Open (where you would have to regard Federer as the favourite), something which suggest that Federer suffers some sort of mental block when playing Nadal on the biggest of occasions. This I agree doesn’t necessarily suggest Nadal is a better player than Federer and that he should be placed higher than Federer in the pantheon, but it negates any claim that Federer is the greatest of all time. In the first place, I think its impossible to define a player as the greatest and certainly not when through a sustained period of his career he has come a cropper against his chief rival.

Also on the argument about Nadal’s place amongst the greats, if he necessarily needs to achieve more in the US Open and the Australian Open to be compared with the ‘all-time greats’, then Sampras who has never gotten past the semi-final at Roland Garros and Federer who has, but a solitary title in Paris, have no place in that list, wouldn’t you say? Borg never won the US Open and didn’t get past the 3rd round in his only appearance in the Aus Open, but he’s certainly one of the all-time greats. McEnroe never won in France and Australia. Likewise, Connors never won the French Open. But Nadal has certainly transcended those boundaries. So if he puts down his tennis racquet right this moment and retires, I’d still think he has the right to be considered alongside these names.

Thanks for your comment. I think it’s, per se, not possible to compare across eras. Statistically, Federer in Grand Slams, at least, is above everyone else, but it is impossible to say without doubt that he was better than Laver, Sampras, etc. And the fact that he is, perhaps, not even the best of his own generation only makes the argument that he is the greatest of all time that much more dubious. Like you say the fact that he is not better than Laver or Sampras may not flow from his record against Nadal, but at least those two stood mostly peerless in their own eras.

And on the question of Nadal’s place own place in the pantheon, like you say this victory only fortifies it. There is no question that he is up with there with the greatest.

America is obviously going through a trough in terms of producing quality tennis players. But that is a point more specific to tennis in general as opposed to being a take-away from Roland Garros, where no American has won, or for that matter come close to winning, since Agassi in 1999.