CAMELOT FANTASIES

Here's another post by EI Dude that I really enjoyed reading. I agree on all accounts. I maybe in love. And I hear he's a teacher. All the more reason for me to fall deeply in love.

=================================================================

Well since its been derailed, I'll join the fray.

As I said elsewhere, so often we like to say our favorite player lost because he was injured, or not on his game, or distracted by a distant cousin's bout with the flu...all of which may have some truth to it. But let us not forget that players are not machines, that they aren't either "on" or "off," and there are always a variety of factors figuring into how they play on a given day. It may be human nature to look for easy, clean answers - but those are the kind of answers that are usually wrong, or at least reductionistic.

A couple years ago, after Rosol beat Nadal, I said something to the effect that all professional players--especially those in the top 100--are capable of truly great tennis. The difference between a Nadal and Rosol isn't only a matter of how great they can play at their absolute best, but how frequently they can reach their absolute best, and in what conditions. I'd even say that the difference between Nadal and Rosol at their very best is smaller than many might believe, but that the difference in their greatness has far more to do with Rafa's ability to channel that greatness more frequently. Everyone has good and bad days, but how often can we create the conditions within ourselves to have a good day?

So when we look at Rafa's Grand Slam record, for instance, we see a lot of gaps and early exits - far more than Novak or Roger, at least during their respective primes. We can't use that to either write Rafa off as being not as great as his fans want him to be, or use them to support Rafa and say that he's even better than his record because of all of those injuries. Staying healthy--and playing at one's best--are part of greatness, not obstacles or pathways to it.

This is why I'm a fan of leaning heavily on the actual statistical record, the results. Federer fans might look at his match-ups with Nadal and say, "Roger was winning all of them until Rafa got to his head and he lost more than Rafa won," and thereby support their view that Roger is actually greater. But, in the end, Rafa is 23-10, not the other way around. Psychology is a huge part of greatness.

On the other hand, we can't simply say that because Rafa is 23-10 against Roger, he's much better. There are other factors, so many that it becomes very complex (e.g. the fact that Roger's game just doesn't match up well against Rafa's). I'm not even saying that we should stick to the results and the results only, but that they do mean a lot and don't require interpretation.

On a side note, it is interesting to me that Rafa receives such ire from his non-fans. I wonder if it is partially a personality thing, because he does come across as rather pouty, which ends up seeming less dignified than Roger's stoicism. Or it might be because he's so damned good, or his style of play that causes people to beat themselves just as much he scores winners and crafts points, or....all of the above and more.

That said, of the Big Four, I've got to say that Rafa is the most irritating loser, just as Novak is the most irritating winner (the shirt pulling), although Novak makes up for it by being such a gracious loser. Roger is pretty mild on both accounts, which may be why he's less annoying to most, and Andy still has that veneer of underdog so its hard to fault whatever his response is.

===============================================================

I wonder if Owen will hold me responsible for stealing posts from TF.