RaulRamirez
Legend
This is getting silly. If you saw my other posts, I have stated that H2H should not be the determining factor in comparing two players, though it shouldn't be overlooked, either. (And perhaps, if two players have close to identical resumes, that could be a tiebreaker.) Rafa has always had the upper hand [h2h] versus Roger, though Roger in winning the last 5 has turned it from a lopsided 23-10 to a much more respectable 23-15.
I never talk about Roger skipping clay the last couple years to avoid Rafa or the various times he's lost in tournaments before meeting him, because I respect him and the game too much. But there's no way to spin it that Roger has had the upper hand on Rafa or even played him even over the years. Obviously, Roger's coming back from a break down in the 5th (AO 18) to win was huge, though. As for the "prime" argument, not yours, per se, with a 5-year age difference, it's likely there will be some matches when the older is in his "prime" but the other isn't there yet; when both are in their prime; and when one is prime and the other is past it. With these guys, it's even harder to define "prime" as especially Roger has been great for so long, and they both have head slight dips and setbacks along the way.
To me, it's fairly simple: The Big 3 are (arguably, and in my opinion) the best three male tennis players. Ever. They get it done in different ways, but their peak "values" are all very similar - a case could be made for all 3, with Djokovic, possibly, having the strongest case as the best player at his peak. Roger's resume boasts the most accomplishments right now, but he has 5 years on Rafa and 6 on Novak. So, of course, they've always been chasing him. To me, it's doubtful that Rafa and Novak will be playing as well as Fed has been at ages 36/37, but one can't count out any of these amazing champions. Heck, Roger loves the game so much, stays in remarkable shape, and his serve is still such a weapon that he might be winning majors at age 40/41.
.
