For most of the fifth set in Saturday’s resumed Wimbledon semifinal, Rafael Nadal was a few points from breaking Novak Djokovic’s serve, which almost certainly would have launched him into Sunday’s final. There, the Spaniard would have been an overwhelming favorite to defeat Kevin Anderson, win his third Wimbledon title and his 18th major overall, which would have put him within two of Roger Federer’s Slam total (a record 20) for the first time ever.

But Djokovic, summoning the belief that’d abandoned him over the last two years, played the big points better and got the win, denying (temporarily?) Nadal’s pursuit of history. As he walked off court, one had to wonder: Did Rafael Nadal just blow his best chance to pass Roger Federer?

Yes, every Slam counts and Nadal just let one slip away

It can all change so quickly. Going into Wimbledon, Federer was favored to defend his title, which would have given him 21 for his career and put him four ahead of Nadal. When the all-time Grand Slam leader lost in the quarterfinals to Kevin Anderson, Nadal became the new favorite and what could have been a four-Slam Federer lead turned into a very-real possibility of a slim two-Slam deficit for Nadal. Since he won his first major in 2005, Rafa has never been that close to Federer. With Federer turning 37 in August before the U.S. Open and Nadal figuring to win at least two more French Opens (at worst), he’d have been the favorite to pass Fed on that list and stake claim to the G.O.A.T. mantle that tennis fans have been debating for the last decade.

And then came Djokovic.

It was a huge swing in a rivalry with a ton of them. The biggest: Nadal winning the 2008 Wimbledon final against Federer (a lead of 12 majors to 5 majors instead of 13 to 4), Nadal winning the 2009 Australian Open against Federer (13 to 6 instead of 14 to 5) and, most recently and importantly, Federer getting one against Nadal in the 2017 Australian Open final (18 to 14 instead of 17 to 15). Myriad losses outside the rivalry (most notably Nadal’s to Stan Wawrinka at the 2014 Australian Open and Federer’s 2014 semifinal defeat at the U.S. Open) have also been key. With Nadal now 32, every Slam, especially those played off his favored clay, are crucial to the final tally.

No, as long as Nadal is unbeatable at the French Open, it’s up for grabs

Nadal is five years younger than Federer (minus two months). Though you could argue that their odometer readings are about the same given Nadal’s injury history and bruising style of play, five years is still five years. Even if Nadal doesn’t go as deep into his career as Federer has, you still have to figure he’ll have a dozen additional opportunities to get another on the board, at least. And as long as he keeps dominating on clay courts, the French Open is a virtual lock. If Federer doesn’t win another major, Nadal would only have to win the next three French Opens (through 2021) to tie him. Throw in an Australian Open, and he’d easily have the main G.O.A.T. bragging rights.

Of course, Nadal is either going to start losing at Roland Garros or stop playing before he does. He can’t keep it up forever. The question is: How long can he go? Three straight titles sounds like nothing to a guy who’s won 11, but consider this: In the modern history of tennis, only one other man has won three-straight French Opens. And Bjorn Borg wasn’t 34 with balky knees when he did it.

Right now, who has the advantage?

In one way, it’s Federer because he’s up on the scoreboard. In another, it’s Nadal because the inexorable march of time has only put 32 years on his body, compared to 37 for Federer. Because of the age gap, Federer has made 73 major starts to get his 20 wins while Nadal has made 53 to get his 17. Game changer? Actually, not as much as you’d think.

Federer had 17 wins at the same exact point in his career Nadal’s at now. Some of that’s because Roger didn’t win his first Slam until his 17th start, while Rafa won in his sixth. The rest is because the last five years of Roger’s career have been light on the majors, as a dip in his play coincided with the peaks of some other greats. Nadal’s sole competition at the moment is an ancient Federer and, as of today, a resurgent Djokovic. Until any 20-somethings step up and show they can compete deep in majors, the advantage has to go to Nadal.

Who cares?

It’s a legitimate question. I know a lot of tennis fans that would rather watch the fifth set of that Kevin Anderson-John Isner match again with their eyes spread open, Clockwork Orange style, than have this discussion again. But debate is what makes the sports world go round. You know what two tennis fans don’t do when sharing a drink or sitting next to each other on an airplane? They don’t have this conversation:

Fan A: “Hey, that Roger Federer is great.”

Fan B: “Yeah! That Rafael Nadal is also great.”

Fan A: “Yes, yes he is. Those tennis players are equally amazing.”

Fan B: “So, where you from?”

Sports fans live to argue. Otherwise, what’s it all for?

I’m more receptive to the response that, ultimately, this debate doesn’t matter. The G.O.A.T. question won’t be decided only by majors. There’s so much to consider: Masters 1000s, weeks at No. 1, Olympic results, second-tier tournaments, longevity, Davis Cup results — eh, not so much Davis Cup results any more. Majors are just an easy shorthand for a complicated discussion.

What’s going to be the final count?

At various points in the last four years, tennis observers asked whether Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic were done. Only, it wasn’t as much a question as it was a statement. They were finished. Federer was too old, Nadal was too beat up and Djokovic was on some sort of vision quest and lost his way. They’ve all come back with a new fire. Predicting the ebbs and flows of their careers is impossible. It doesn’t mean we won’t try, but it’s impossible nonetheless.

While Wimbledon presented itself as a major opportunity for Nadal because of the circumstances surrounding Federer’s exit and a theoretically easy final, every Slam for the next few years is going to have the same give or take scenarios. If Nadal comes back later this summer and defends his U.S. Open title, then the count’s down to two anyway and suddenly letting Wimbledon slip through his fingers doesn’t seem as consequential.

It’ll pose an interesting question and only split the G.O.A.T. debate more: If Nadal were to win those three French Opens, giving him 14 overall, would such a heavy dependence on clay-court majors make his 20 Slams so different from Federer (who’s won 11 on hard courts, eight on grass and one on clay) that the comparison will be apples and oranges?

That’s actually the most likely outcome, I think. Nadal will be recognized as a historically great tennis player who was transcendent on clay. Federer will be recognized as a transcendent tennis player who was historically great on all surfaces. And Rafa’s head-to-head lead will be mitigated by his dominance on clay (Nadal leads the series 23-15 but Federer has him 13-10 on non-clay surfaces).

But since I’m posing rhetorical questions to myself, my guess is that Federer wins one more (maybe two), and Nadal gets three or four French Opens, plus a stray hard-court Slam somewhere. Eventually, I think Nadal edges out The Fed, 22-21.

But what about Novak Djokovic?

Oh. Right. That guy. If he wins on Sunday, the Djoker has 13 Slams and a boat load of confidence, all while being a full year younger than Nadal. I guess the more in the G.O.A.T. debate, the merrier.