Roger Federer may not be tennis' GOAT, but as Rafael Nadal articulated, he's a 1 of 1

Since I can remember, he is the player who has impressed me the most, the one who has entertained me the most, the one who has excited me the most. I have been more excited to see Federer play than Djokovic, and in the end tennis is emotion, emotion is what draws you to it. Rafael Nadal on Roger Federer, in an interview with Spain’s EL PAIS, published last week

Nadal is a realist. He would never make a silly frontal assault on Novak Djokovic’s credentials as tennis’ GOAT. After all, Djokovic has won more Grand Slam singles titles than anyone but co-record older Margaret Court.

But Nadal’s comments on Federer, and the rivalry they shared, make it clear that the resurgent Spanish star puts Federer on a pedestal that has room for only one.

Djokovic fans probably will find much to protest in Nadal’s far-ranging comments, as well as his eyebrow-raising claim that the Fedal rivalry was unparalleled (at least in this era). That’s okay. This “trivalry” was awkward from the get go.

“In terms of tennis, it’s clear,” Nadal told the Spanish daily, as he prepared for what might be his career-ending 2024 season. “It (our rivalry) was a combination of very radical styles. Federer was perfection in terms of aesthetics, elegance, and technique. . .When I arrived he got a rival with long hair and an exuberant physique. Elegance against a warrior. It was a unique combination of personalities and styles and that, combined with playing many matches on the most important stages, turned our rivalry into something transcendent.”

Who knew that Nadal could articulate Federer’s contribution to the game more clearly and succinctly than a fleet of pundits and statisticians?  His opinions are just that, and by no means indisputable. But the comment at the top of this story could have been made by any among millions of ga-ga fans rather than his career-defining rival—himself a holder of 22 Grand Slam singles titles. It is also why a gifted, high-brow author was moved to write an article with the cringey headline, Roger Federer as Religious Experience.

Only the Williams sisters brought more people than Federer from outside the tent into the tennis community. In light of Djokovic’s spectacular achievements, it’s easy to forget the hoo-ha Federer routinely generated at his peak. Going to watch a Federer match at the US Open here in New York was, for one well-heeled friend of mine, an annual ritual—like scoring the hot ticket to the latest smash on Broadway. He has not been out to Flushing Meadows since Federer retired, but he now follows the pro game. I suspect there are many like him out there.

Nadal suggests that affecting people—moving them, emotionally—is the ultimate accomplishment in tennis. That cannot be engineered or guaranteed, no matter how talented or successful the players are. Tennis may not “need” another Federer, but the game would be better off if one emerged.

Realistically, the chances of that happening are slim. The most obvious reason is that the game continues to move in a risk-averse direction, favoring raw power over versatility, and solid defense over attacking flair. While avoiding errors is essential to success, creativity is always the first casualty in the quest for consistency.

Carlos Alcaraz is a fresh breath in that area, but we have yet to see if he can contend in the long term with the likes of rangy, strong, long-limbed ball punishers like Holger Rune and Jannik Sinner.

Beyond that, Federer was a player for the ages in ways that goes far beyond his contribution as winner of 20 Grand Slam singles titles, or a partner in the Fedal rivalry. Few who played with comparable flair were such able competitors. Any number of young players could ultimately match his record, but how many can bring as many other fan and media-friendly qualities to the table? How many could end up blessed with a rival like Nadal, who simultaneously made Federer look more brilliant as well as more vulnerable?

Federer has always been a little touchy about his achilles heel, the one-handed backhand that, more than any other rival, Nadal attacked so successfully. That was the driving force of their rivalry, enabling it to read like a great novel more than an interesting collection of thoughts.

“What has been transmitted in those matches has not been achieved in the matches between Djokovic and Federer, or Djokovic against me,” Nadal told El Pais. “Even if they are matches of a very high level, or even a higher level, who knows? But there was such a brutal contrast (in Nadal’s rivalry with Federer). In those games there was a different atmosphere.”

That atmosphere did not necessarily amount to a religious experience for everyone, but does anyone doubt that Federer has left a hole that may never be filled in tennis?