Yes, joking - but to address the serious part. What you say reminds me of how people criticize players for reaching finals but not winning them. This is one of the more obvious reasons I don't like to overly focus on Slam wins. Take 2019, for example (which is my most painful loss as a Roger fan...I couldn't even pay attention to tennis for a month or two after that). If we only look at Slam titles, Novak is "1" and Roger is "0." But Roger still played a great match and, as you say, he was almost 38 playing against a 32 year old.
Or Andy Murray's Slam final record: 3-8. What a loser, right? Well, he peaked during a rather unfortunate era, and the fact is that he made it to 11 finals - the same number as McEnroe, Becker, and Wilander (and one more than Edberg). Or Lendl at 8-11...that's more than anyone other than the Big Three. I've said before that Lendl's prime might have overlapped with more all-time greats than anyone else: he came of age while Borg, Connors, and McEnroe were still prime, saw the rise of Wilander, Becker, and Edberg, and then was declining as Sampras, Agassi, and Courier were rising. No easy years in there (still, he should have beat Pat Cash!).