My introduction to Nadal was him beating Federer way too often. I didn’t like him for that. And didn’t care for his brand of tennis. His style felt like an ugly paint brush on an otherwise pretty Federer canvas. In David Foster Wallace ’s words, he was the price we paid for the elegance that was Roger Federer.

On the other hand, I owe him so much. He is the reason I understand tennis, to the level that I do. Before him I liked to watch. To be honest I just liked watching Federer. And then one day I started mulling on the question: why Nadal does not (hardly, ever) lose on clay? Answering that question turned me from a Federer fan to a tennis fan. From someone who likes watching to someone who loves playing. And from someone who disliked his style to one of his greatest admirers.

I am sure things will change in the future. But to the point we understand tennis today, no one can do what he did, the way he did. With as much injuries he had. And perhaps most importantly, with as much humility as he had.

If you only know him from his matches where he gets ridiculously competitive and often feels like he is going to chew his opponent, you only know half of the story. Andy Roddick spoke about him in his podcast which I would encourage you to listen. I will probably fall short of describing what I have in mind.

It’s pretty hard to distinguish between the big three. While Djokovic has the numbers and Federer the universal appeal, it’s Nadal who is going to hook you even if you know nothing about tennis. His matches were never matches. They always felt far bigger than they were. No one raised the bar of competition as much as him. And yet, as Roddick says, he is always the first person to downplay his role.