Any championship in sports is worth celebrating. There is no bigger gap is sports than those who have 1 title and those who have none.
2 titles means you proved it. 2 means you weren't a fluke...unless you're Eli Manning.
But 3?
3 is the key, the number that clearly defines a dynasty.
The Warriors? Dynasty.
Shaq and Kobe? Dynasty.
LeBron's run in Miami, or the Bad Boys Pistons? Close...but no.
With a few hours to reflect on Rafael Nadal winning his 12th Roland Garros title, I think the number 3 and the context of dynasties are what really stand out.
As much as Rafa and his team building him back up after one of the rare crises of joy in his entire career, or that he now has the youngest and oldest major threepeats among Open Era men, what this 2019 reunion with the Coupes des Mousquetaires signifies is that he now has a third dynasty on the dirt.
--
One of my long-held thoughts about this Big Four era is that it would make a lot more sense if Nadal weren't in it.
A tour without Rafa would've delivered a less extreme ATP equivalent to the Evert/Navratilova rivalry: a lengthy Roger Federer/Novak Djokovic duopoly in which the upper hand was mostly decided by age, the elder ruling for the front half, the younger for the back half.
Instead, Nadal has almost annually wrested (or maintained) control of the steering wheel from April to June, each during the prime of a different rival who would otherwise be contending for the status of best claycourter since Bjorn Borg:
Mid-to-late 2000s: A young Rafa dominates clay in Roger Federer's prime, 31 straight wins in Paris, record 81 matches won streak
Early-to-mid 2010s: A prime-age Rafa dominates clay in Novak Djokovic's prime, 39 straight wins in Paris
Late 2010s: A post-30 Rafa dominates clay in Dominic Thiem's (early?) prime, 23 straight wins and counting in Paris (21 if deducting wins before the 2016 walkover), record 50 sets won streak
Thiem is obviously the "one of these things is not like the others" of those names, however, he has now accumulated a record of 24-2 at Roland Garros against all other players besides Nadal.
That includes 17-0 over the last three years, just as Federer went 23-0 against the field from 2005-2008, David Ferrer 15-0 from 2012-2014, and Djokovic 17-0 in those same years (plus 14-0 from 2006-2008).
--
Nadal's 2017 title was a tricky one to categorize, as no player in recent memory had been such a prohibitive favorite despite a career-long drought. So while Rafa won that title and added an "old man" title to his resume by thoroughly wrecking the field that year, it never had the feel of a sendoff or sneaking in a major the way Pete Sampras so famously did in 2002.
Like Nadal, Federer was the favorite for Wimbledon. Unlike Nadal, despite having already ended his Slam drought back in Australia, Fed's run was prefaced with nostalgia like the "Give us one more Wimbledon title, Roger! Just one more" article by ESPN's Patrick McEnroe (seriously, that was the title).
As ridiculous as that was at the time and still is now, the sentiment wasn't wrong. Roger and Rafa are not linked in age the way many casual fans probably think they are, and it was not an insult to Fed to appreciate that achievement in a very immediate sense, a response that was validated with Federer's mini-swoon in 2018.
So that's what this title represents to me, the number 12 no more important than 2+1, an expansion of Rafa's revival into a full-blown era that removed from everything pre-age 30, pre-Carlos Moya, would still stand as the best claycourt resume of the last ~40 years:
-10 titles in 15 events, 71-5 overall
-3 French Opens and 5 Masters titles (with titles at all 3), 10-0 in finals, no losses pre-QF
-62-3 in sets at Roland Garros
-The aforementioned 50 consecutive sets won on clay
-4+ years older than previous modern 3peat Slam record (Sampras at Wimbledon)
In sports, the third year of the threepeat is traditionally the toughest, and that was true of Nadal's 2019. Yet even in this down spring season with only 2 finals, he made the semifinals of all 5 events. For comparison, the only other times anyone besides Rafa has reached the semis in Paris plus all 3 Masters are Djokovic in 2008 and Andy Murray in 2016. That's it.
--
One of the most fascinating parts of Nadal's clay career is that when it comes to the famous records - 93-2, 12-0, 436-39 - the 2, 0 and 39 are every bit as legendary as the 93, 12 and 436.
Not even Federer at Wimbledon or Serena Williams at (pick your tournament of choice) are in a situation where they arguably have more to lose than gain by merely participating.
Consider: If Rafa retired right now, would the Michael-Jordan-esque aura of 12-0 in finals age better than 13-1? Would doubling or tripling his career losses on Chatrier outweigh getting a 19th Slam? Do you keep playing a video game when you already hold all the high scores?
A weird dichotomy that I pondered through this tournament is that if healthy at age 34 next year, it will be foolish (as it was this year) to deem anyone else the 2020 French Open favorite, yet also a weird sign of respect if Nadal isn't favored, a cushion to soften the overdue stumble.
As I tweeted following Monte Carlo, these things aren't supposed to be won 4 times in a row, especially not at this age. It just doesn't happen...does it?