How Inconsistency on Non-Clay Courts Affects Rafael Nadal in GOAT Debate

It is easy to overreact to a loss. If you paid attention to this year's NBA Finals, both the Spurs and the Heat were all but left for dead by members of the media and fans alike after a loss in the seesaw that was the seven-game series. With that in mind, Rafael Nadal losing in the first round of Wimbledon may not be too big of a deal.

At least that's what I thought. Until I really thought about it.

Nadal's shocking straight sets loss to Steve Darcis, a 29-year-old Belgian who had only two ATP wins this year and is ranked No. 135, in the first round of Wimbledon was not good for his legacy as tennis' Greatest Of All Time. Nadal has struggled before, but this was the only first-round defeat in a major of his career. And to reiterate: He lost in straight sets.

The loss is not going to take Nadal away from the G.O.A.T. debates, he is firmly in the discussion, and there is talk that an injury hampered him during the match (even though Nadal refused to discuss it). The loss will, however, be a viable argument for those trying to prove that he isn't the best ever. (For this article, our G.O.A.T. qualifiers will rely mostly on the four major tennis tournaments that make up the Grand Slam.)

Nadal's resume is striking. The winner of all four majors to claim a Career Grand Slam, he has won 12 of them in total. The eight French Open wins is the most wins a player has at any single major (both Pete Sampras and Roger Federer own seven wins apiece at Wimbledon). His 59-1 record at Roland Garros is astounding.

Nadal's clay-court dominance may be phenomenal, but he also knows how to win elsewhere. He has two wins on the grass of the All England Club and one apiece at the hard courts of the Australian Open and US Open. In comparison to his play on clay, however, Nadal struggles on grass and hard courts as the four wins seem pedestrian to the eight in Paris. For good measure, he also has an Olympic Gold from Beijing in 2008.

In the debate of greatest tennis player ever, the names of Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal come up often.

In 1969, Laver won all four Grand Slams. He is the only player to hold all four Grand Slams in the same calendar year. Bjorn Borg failed to win all four but won six French Opens to go with five Wimbledon titles from 1974 to 1981. While both are legends, it is hard to compare them to today's players, and we're leaving that debate for a different time.  

Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in the 1990s was like Nadal at the French Open since 2005: dominance personified. He won seven Wimbledon titles, all in an eight-year span from 1993 to 2000. His 14 career Grand Slam wins are the stuff of legend.

However, putting Sampras on the clay of Roland Garros was like putting Muggsy Bogues up against Michael Jordan in a dunk contest on an 11-foot hoop. The furthest Sampras ever went at the French Open was the 1996 semifinal. He suffered first-round defeats in 1995, 2000 and 2002. If we’re going to fault Nadal for one first-round loss in a tournament that he has won twice, we have to note Sampras’ complete lack of success on the clay courts in Paris. 

Roger Federer is the most suitable challenger to Nadal for G.O.A.T titleholder. The winner of 17 Grand Slams, he's three clear of the field for most ever (he could make it 18 if Wimbledon goes the way he plans). Federer got a little bit of luck when he didn't have to beat Nadal to win the 2009 French Open to secure the career Grand Slam, but nonetheless he has all four.

Nadal has a career record of 20-10 over Federer and a 6-2 record in Grand Slam finals, but age may have something to do with that. Federer hasn't been quite as dominant since his string from 2003 to 2008 that saw him win 13 of his Grand Slams.

Plus, Federer has never faltered as shockingly as Nadal's early exits from Wimbledon the past two years.Since Federer's first Wimbledon win in 2003 (he has seven Wimbledon trophies in his possession), his earliest exit at a Grand Slam was the third round at the 2004 French Open. He has made it to at least the quarterfinal of every Grand Slam he's entered since that early exit in the 2004 French Open.

Nadal has been nowhere near that consistent.

The Nadal-Federer debate does not have one clear winner. Nadal's dominance on clay is unheard of. No one can match what he has done there. It is his inconsistency in the other tournaments that leave him vulnerable. 

Both Nadal and Federer can claim to be G.O.A.T. Both are players who are dominant in ways that other tennis players dream of. Because they are both so good, we are forced to nitpick their brilliance.

Regardless of your stance, those on Team Federer would be wise to bring up Nadal's struggles away from the clay in France. Nadal has a career Grand Slam to his name just like Federer, but Federer has never bowed out as early as Nadal. Nadal has missed tournaments with injury; Federer has not.

Nadal's early ousting from Wimbledon should not be the deciding factor in the G.O.A.T. debate; he is still one of the best players ever.

He should, however, be wary of any more first-round defeats. Any more sloppiness away from clay is a detriment to his legacy.