Former player Ilie Nastase believes that Rafael Nadal's 14 Roland Garros wins are a harder achievement than Novak Djokovic's 23 Grand Slams.
Comparing things in sports is very difficult to do because sports are fluid and it's never the same thing. Even the same sport changes from year to year and in tennis and on the ATP Tour particularly, the change is constant.
What happens one year rarely happens the other year so it's very hard to compare players, eras, and achievements. Yet it's been done because people like to compare things, whether it's sports, jewelry, cars, or phones.
Djokovic recently won Roland Garros becoming the first male player to ever win 23 Grand Slam trophies. It's an incredible achievement simply as it was never done before and his biggest rival, Rafael Nadal quickly congratulated him on the 'impossible achievement'. As impressive as it is former player Ilie Nastase feels like Nadal's own 14 in Paris is harder to do than Djokovic's 23 in total.
They're both there, close to each other. Does it matter now that he took an extra one? It matters to Djokovic, but I don't think Nadal is jealous of that. Someone else should be jealous of him, that he won Roland Garros 14 times. Those 14 are harder than Djokovic's 23.
The comment was obviously made in regards to many proclaiming Djokovic as the greatest of all time. That status is something Nadal said doesn't interest him, however, that's probably not entirely true. All of the players care because their commitment to the sport proves that. Even if controversial, the comment is an interesting one.
Fellow former player Mats Wilander said earlier this year that Djokovic's 10 Australian Open can be compared to Nadal's 14 in Paris. That's totally fair but what is harder? How can we compare? In a way, Nastase could be right that the 23 wasn't as hard as winning 14 because even the great Djokovic didn't win the same Grand Slam 14 times.
Nadal almost won 23, and Federer is not too far away with 20 as well but then again 23 is a lot more than 14 as a number. How can be it harder? It defies the mind but it's all proof that you can't really compare it that directly.
It's not as black and white otherwise Djokovic winning all four Grand Slams at least three times would be the hardest. Nobody did that either but that's still only 12 as a number? 12 combined or 14 at the same place?
It's not comparable and it doesn't need to be. Greatness can be appreciated without the need to downplay it. Nastase himself listed many greats putting them all under the greatness umbrella.
They're all there, Federer is too. Let's not forget those before, Borg, Rod Laver, who did the calendar Slam twice, Sampras. Or others, which we have forgotten. Agassi, for example. And others.
0 Comments