I think it'll be Roger.

Also seen as it's out of the two of them are we ruling out Laver? Lendl? Borg?

What would have happened if Borg continued?

As for the surface battle, I agree with Enrique but you could even say Federer > Borg on clay, he's reached all those finals but he just happened to have Rafa on the other side of the court.

Sampras

Yeah, this is a very interesting question to me. It seems like he was just so dominant at the French and Wimbledon, finally slowed down, and then immediately packed it up at a surprisingly young age. I tend to put him near the top, for that reason.

I think if you were doing rankings today, they look something like this

Federer

Laver/Sampras/Borg (not sure what the order should be here)

Nadal (at this point with the career slam and 9 majors, I think Nadal is a pretty worthy #5)

I think Nadal will pass at least a couple of those guys ahead of him.

As for the older players, I agree they were dominant and respect that people want to put them in the conversation. But I think that even accounting for advances in equipment bother roger and rafa would smash any of the older superstars. I think the amount of training, level and quality of coaching, and style of play has developed so much that it wouldn't be much of a contest.
Essentially what I'm saying is if you took any older players at their peak and gave them modern equipment (assuming they are adept and comfortable at using this equipment) they would still probably lose something like 6-2 or 6-3.

Right now the records clearly speak for Federer.

It is however hard to predict who will end up as GOAT (nobody will ever end up there anyway) but Federer is actually a good example how much harder winning tournaments, especially Grand Slams, becomes throughout the years.

Furthermore, Nadal's game should wear him out physically much more than Federer, but at the US Open he showed a big improvement at his serve which allows him many more free points.

Anyway, because I think Federer can still win a few slams, I'd say Federer now.

if his body holds up, nadal for sure. love watchin that kid play

How many more slams do you think Feds will win? What's a good line? I've heard lots of people say none. I think 2 is probably a fair line, cause I'd want under 2.5 and wouldn't offer anyone +1.5 at even money.

nadal fo sho

Agassi, ldo.

@uistbhoy:Sampras was bloody awesome and is regarded as one of the greats but because he was playing not that long ago in terms of the older guys we can make a fair (shall we say) comparison with him and Roger/Rafa. They could both be regarded as better players. He wasn't one of the great on clay and when we're talking about the GOAT. I feel they've got to be good (or up there) on all surfaces, no?

I feel like i'm being harsh on Sampras as he was awesome but imo Roger and Rafa are better players.

@gumpzilla: He could have still won a couple more GS and could have continued for several years after that.

@housenuts: I'd rather the modern players tired the heavy wooden racquets with a basic string tension and see how they get on with them.

if nadal stays healthy I think he's a solid bet to overtake federer

fyp

didnt he play like a whole season with mono?

anyway, this is pretty obv nadal. federer has decent wim, but that wimbledon final proved nadal has gwoat.

No five hour long 5th set pitched battle determines that one player is obviously better than the other. It's super close but as of now Fed still has the slight nod IMO. He has the better record head to head on all non-clay surfaces, more career titles, a longer stretch at number 1 etc. If Nadal was as dominant on the other surfaces as Fed is on clay I think we would have seen more head to head matches on those other surfaces. It's kind of LOL that they have met more times on clay than all other surfaces combined, strictly because Fed himself is a top 5 all time clay court player.

what impresses me about fed is that hes never injured. has anyone ever seen him call a medical timeout during a match?

He had a injury plagued last season didn't he?

Hopefully Rafa will avoid the wear and tear that has occasionally plagued him and we'll see some of the most beautiful tennis.

Federer in his early years of dominance never had anyone who could regularly challenge him h2h, much less be considered a rival, until Nadal. If Djokovic and maybe even Murray (lol) continue to improve, they'll be more than occasional roadblocks for Rafa at future grand slams. It's pretty nasty that if not for Nadal, people would probably be mentioning Fed as the greatest clay court player of all time.

wasn't there some talk after that epic wimbledon match about nadal being on roids?

dude nadal owns him. from wiki

tennis snobs sht all over logic and resutls to say fed is better only bc he has a really pretty game and demeanor. nadal is herky jerky and brutish and lacking aesthetics.

Fed = Messi
Nadal = Ronaldo

That's how I look at it.

Fed is so silky and is just awesome to watch. While Nadal's game is about power and athleticism. Not to mention Nadal always wears tight pants with a g-string and tight shirts just like Ronaldo.

Looks like the edge is monsterous b/c most of their matches are on Nadal's best surface. Additionally, I'm not sure what we would consider Federer's prime but obviously it's not the last 2 or so seasons while this is Nadal's prime. Obviously on Clay, Nadal >> Federer. Additionally, HU between Federer in his late prime or past prime << Nadal. Not sure if that is the case if Nadal and Federer were have to played at their respective primes and let's say they had the same # of matches on the different surfaces.

ofc fed apologists are gonna say this. fed is obv being pwned by nadal, so its not his prime. qed.

except that messi is better than ronaldo. fed is lol not better than nadal.

haha Victor for King Troll