Roger Federer earned near unanimous acclaim as the greatest tennis player of all time (GOAT) when he passed Pete Sampras (14) for the most grand slam titles. But Rafael Nadal’s second U.S. Open title, and 13th grand slam championship, gave him one more than Federer at the same age. But this isn’t about what Nadal, 27, may yet do; what Rafael Nadal has already accomplished is also more impressive than what Federer has done. Consider:
Nadal also has won an Olympic Gold Medal and spear-headed Spain to four Davis Cup titles. Federer has zero and zero.
Nadal’s uncle told “The Australian” that “Federer is still the best” but added “it is getting very, very close for Rafa to be level with Roger or more.” He also said: “Is 17 grand slams more important than everything else? Is it more important than Davis Cups? Is it more important than Olympic Games? Olympic Games is big thing thing for our sport. Rafa has won 26 Masters series titles and that is more than Roger.”
Nadal doesn’t have to win 18 grand slam titles to pass Federer. John McEnroe and Mats Wilander just said winning two more to get to 15 would mean Nadal had a better career than Federer.
I say that’s about right.
Just two more and Nadal is CLEARLY better.
But he’s already at least just as good.
Here’s why:
For starters, he has those 26 Masters series titles to Federer’s 21.
He is also 20-1 in Davis Cup matches, with his only loss coming in his first try at age 17.
Those four Davis Cup titles and one Olympic gold medal equal at least one more grand slam title, if not two. Make it two, and Nadal has 15 titles to Federer’s 17.
Nadal has also missed three grand slam events with injuries in the midst of his prime.
In the last four years, he, in order, won the U.S. Open by beating Novak Djokovic in four sets, lost in the finals to Djokovic the year Djokovic won three grand slams and had one of the greatest years of all time, missed the U.S. Open with injury and then won it again this year by beating Djokovic again in four sets. … It’s quite likely that if Nadal had played last year, he, not Andy Murray, would have won the U.S. Open.
But let’s leave that title to Murray.
And we’ll leave this year’s Australian Open to Djokovic, with Nadal missing the first grand slam in a year that he is 60-3 overall and 22-0 on hard courts.
How about we just give Nadal the title in the other tourney he missed completely, Wimbledon in 2009. Nadal won Wimbledon the year before and the year after; he certainly would have been favored in 2009 also, the year Roger Federer won his sixth Wimbledon.
Give that Wimbledon title to Nadal in a theoretically healthy world, and Nadal would have 14 slams to Federer’s 16, and it would be a 16-all tie if you counted the Olympics and Davis Cups as even half as important as the Australian Open.
And now look at HOW they have won their titles.
Federer is 2-6 vs. Nadal in grand slam finals and 15-1 against everyone else.
Nadal is 13-5 in finals — against far tougher competition.
Federer won his first seven grand slam finals until he ran into Nadal. Sorry Roger Federer fans, but it is a heck of a lot easier to win against Mark Philippoussis and Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt and Marcos Baghdatis and Fernando González than against Nadal or Djokovic. Federer is only 10-7 in grand slam finals, after that 7-0 start, since meeting Nadal in his first final in 2006, when he was in his absolute prime at age 25.
Now look at who Rafael Nadal has had to beat. After beating Mariano Puerta to win his first grand slam title at age 18, Nadal played Federer in his next seven grand slam finals. Federer fans like to complain that Nadal caught him on the downside of his career. Not so; in the last of these seven matches, Nadal had just turned 23 while Federer was 28.
Nadal, now 27, is having perhaps the greatest season of his career. Federer actually had the age edge in most of their title matches. The only time Nadal and Federer squared off in a grand slam final when Federer wasn’t at the height of his career came two years ago in the French Open, on a surface and a tournament where Federer could never beat Nadal, a record eight-time champ.
Now, after facing Federer in seven of his first eight grand slam finals, he has played Federer (once) and Djokovic (six times) in seven of his LAST eight finals, going 3-3 vs. Djokovic, another all-time great who is the same age as Nadal.
Federer only played Djokovic once in a grand slam final.
If these were race horses, Federer would have been racing against whoever Seattle Slew beat and Nadal would be Affirmed edging an almost equally great Alydar every time.
Nadal is the only tennis player to win at least one grand slam title nine years in a row.
Critics call him the “King of Clay” and make him out to be a one-court specialist, but Nadal and Mats Wilander are the only two players to win two grand slams each on all three surfaces.
It was Rafael Nadal that ended Roger Federer’s record 56-match winning streak on hard courts. And it was Nadal that ended Federer’s record 65-match winning streak on grass courts. And Federer ended Nadal’s record 81-match win streak on clay.
But Nadal has had an even longer rivalry with Djokovic, which has become the longest running rivalry in tennis history.
Tennis commentator Mary Carillo said yesterday that the greatest matches she has ever seen on all three surfaces involved Rafael Nadal: When he beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, when he lost last year to Djokovic at the Australian Open and when he beat Djokovic this year at the French Open.
Nadal is also 22-15 lifetime against Djokovic, 21-10 against Federer (21-6 outdoors) and 13-5 vs. Andy Murray. That’s a 56-30 record involving the Big Four of his career.
Federer is 10-21 vs. Nadal, 16-13 vs. Djokovic and 9-11 vs. Murray for a 35-45 record.
Source: rrstar.com (Rafael Nadal passes Roger Federer as greatest tennis player ever by Matt Trowbridge)
You must loose a lot of money,hes only won 2 majors since the end of 2009 same as Murray
Its not any one fault that nadal got injured, some one cant except the fact the man who lost in the fourth round of wimbeldon has to be injured, every time he loses earlier than excepted than he is injured, difficult but a hard fact to accept, whether he is there or not every Federer fan will put his money on Federer only, and we dont even care ur worthless and baseless argument that even someone is close to Nadal, Federer fans rock and Federer is the best, the greatest player of all time(GOAT), lets go federer lets go, lets go federer lets go, lets go federer lets go, the greatest player in history of tennis and the world has ever seen, lets go federer lets go……………………………
Now someone is talking about prime, caught in his own words, when some one say exactly that about federer then they cant digest, then they say the same old story, it was there to be the withdrawl of nadal in us open, my money is always upon federer whether he wins or not, now its upon u, on whom u will put ur money……………
Nadal out of US open,get your money on Federer
Agassi was a great player,he was 35 and playing with a bad back,when Federer beat him in the U.S. open,Hewitt is still playing,what has he won against these players,Roddick has a clear losing record against David Ferrer,the only player of class who played in both era’s,he also has a clear win record against Hewitt,the 6th or7th best player of today could beat the people Federer beat,of course they are good players,but where would you put them in your all time top 20,apart from Agassi,who is probably all time top ten,the rest are no where,and Agassi was way past his best
Federer was in is prime in 2007-8 Nadal was still young and not in his prime,so just why has Federer not beat him in a major since 2007 on any surface anywhere?
Someone is saying that Roddick, Heywit, Agassi was not too strong, r they mentally right or shud go to a psychiatrist, its the old talking about age, and when someone says about federer going slow due to age, then they reply that Federer fans talk about age only, they must go to a psychiatrist, in 2005 nadal was 19,yeah than Federer shud have waited till he became enough capaple to win grand slams on other surfaces or it would have been much better shud have asked him that i shud win the grand slams as u r unable to win,we shud wait if someone is learning to play on other surfaces, yeah what a logical mind, then how he won on clay 2005, someone dont understand that, they just give their idiotic stuff all the time, then they say that nadal was young and now federer is old, hey go for a check up……………………….
So just tell me again,how as Federer been close to Nadal since the end of 2007? Bet you can’t
Nadal matured as an all court player around 2008, he was 19 in 2005 you can’t expect all court maturity at that age,including Federer,however,whenever there rivalry started it’s still 9-2 Nadal in grand slams,he as won on all courts,Federers as only won on grass,when Nadal was a kid learning to play grass,and he hasn’t beat Nadal in a grand slam since 2007 ,when he had decent opposition his win ratio plummeted,Nadal and Djokovic have out performed him over a long period,he was just lucky to have week opponents between 2003 -2007 if he had the same opposition as now he couldn’t have won as many,if he could have won as many against this class of opposition WHY HASN’T HE?? Hes had enough time to do it,but can’t
Whats depth knowledge someone require if he thinks that federer has more grandslams than nadal, compare from 2005 when nadal won his first grand slam, now i got u, if any one does not won a grand slam till 2008, then u shud count from that only, whether he is winning on clay 2005 dont count that, because he was not able to win on other courts, except clay in grand slams, so we shud count from 2008 when some started winning, its an nice idiotic logic for himself, but u cant deploy on others ur selfless silly mindset not knowing that whom FEDERER defeated in that years in grand slams finals ANDY RODDICK, LlEYTON HEWIT, ANDRE AGAASI, if u dont know, read the stats and then relax ur mind and think, the greatest player of all time Sir Roger Federer……………..
Someone not having the knowledge about tennis and simply arguing, we are not talkiing about ages , no one should, when did nadal win his 1 grand slam , it was not in 2008 , it was in 2005,tennis was not started in 2008 but a new so where was he when federer was dominating the slams, he was not there in the finals, the other guys were, so leave your silly mind behind and think, no one is talking about age, u will see more of federer till he plays and will break records, whose fault is this that some one gots injured or not playing in the finals or finding its peak afterwards, no one said if u can win in 2005 in clay then y not others, so dont give that idiotic stuff and all that with no clear logic……………….
Here is a challenge,someone (just dealing in facts,not propaganda) tell me how Federers achievements are close to Nadals since 2007, Dojkovic as achieved more than Federer in the last 7 years,when to people outperform you over a long period,you ain’t the goat
Don’t be silly,its not just how many,its who you beat,since the end of 2007 ,when they have played together at there prime Nadal has won 11 majors, Federer 5 he has not beat nadal in a major since 2007,it the same dull numbers argument,with no in depth knowledge behind it.
What an idiot u all r if u thnk tht rafa is grt than roger,in no way he is great thn roger, look at the grand slams record of roger against murray and djokovic, the two most greatest players after roger and rafa, dont be stupid to look at overal record look at grand slams record , and how many titles has rafa won, if u r comparing rafa and roger, so dont even think to compare rafa and roger , he is not even close to greatness of Sir Roger Federer………………….
Have to say i love the rather desperate argument fed fans have about the head to head records.nirjhour on here says if you take nadals clay court wins out Federer leads 10 8 ,although he conveniently leaves Federers 2 clay court wins in,well lets bring the figures up to date,it’s now 23 10 nadal,so minus clay its 10 8, seems fair,if we are taking one man’s best surface we should take the others,so indoors is 4 1 Federer,so that gives us 9 4 nadal,more or less exactly the same ratio of wins in nadals favour,as before you started the whole silly process,and at least ive done it in a fair way
Tennis didn’t start in 2008,but a new era did,in that era the great roger became the 3rd most successful grand slam player with 5 wins,behind Novak 6 and Rafael 11,it doesn’t matter how good past opposition was or wasn’t,if your the best ever you stay best against anyone,not third,Federer was very lucky not to be born the same year as the other 3 great players of today,given he has only won 5 against them,i would give him a 12 at most if he had meet them throughout is career,3rd best player of the last 7years doesn’t make you the best ever,dominating great players the way Rafael as does
14 gs and continue
Davis cup is a team sport so it means absolutely nothing in the goat debate.Yes Nadal has gold in the olympics but Federer has a silver.That difference is not even worth a quarter of a slam.ok Nadal has more master 1000′s but his 500′s are less impressive than Federers because none of the top seeds really play the clay 500′s.He has no WTF and that is the next most important tournament after the majors.Also Nadal hasn’t even been no1 for 200 weeks yet,let alone 302.He’s won only 3 hc slams which is pretty bad for someone to be considerd the goat.People may say Federer only has 1 french open but we all know the main surface is hardcourt.It’s 2/3 of the tour.Harcourt will always be the main most important surface.
I feel for Rafa fans..I mean Rafa is a great player and certenly has the chance to surpass Federer in the slam count..But this article makes such a weak case for that it is unbelivibale..First of all one should never talk abt theorotical world. Rafa missng the 2009 wimby or any other slam is completely and justly the price he has to pay for the most brutal game style in the history of the sport..I mean tennis was just not to meant to b played like retreving EVERY ball somehow and force ur opponent to make misrake..Yes defence is an importent part of the game but what he does on tennis court is inhuman and may i add a little boring. So if he wants to win like that then he has to pay the price for it..Its not like he has someominent genetic fault and gets injured easily its his gamestyle and you cant have both health and that brutelness..So injury excuse should never b given by Rafa fans..Onather most imoortent thing in the GOAT debate apart from slams has to be how dominent you were in your prime..And Rafa hasnt been no 1 for much long owing to his inhuman playing style..So u cant loose to lesser players at other salms and keep winning one slam each year and be declared the greatest ever…If Rafa needs to be declared better than Fed or anyone elase (frankly i dont see the need to do that for any player both Rafa and Federer ate equally great in theitlr own rights) Rafa has to b more consistent and dominaye for a conaecutive period of 2-3 years
…But as i said he already os a great champ…Just leave it at that.
it makes you sound dumb to say Rafa is boring most people loves to watch him play Tennis over any other player, Rafa is the most exciting player out there I have been watching Tennis for like 36 yrs. i never have seen a player as exciting to watch play the Sport as he,and people like exciting Tennis players. that is why he Draws the Crowds. Rafa has a disease in his knee had he not he probably would have at least 17 grand slams by now if not more.
so whattt….. look 1 grandslam equals to many many devis cups including olympic gold medal… and it is really difficult to maintain fitness at the age of 32… will see nadal and djoko at the age
of 32… and clearly federer is more and more professional than both…. HE IS JUST BESTTTTTT…….. LETS go ROGER… lets go ROGER……… LETS go ROGEr…….. we stillllllllllll luvs u……… 😀