Quote:
Originally Posted by superfish99
The thing is though, had Nadal not been so good on clay Federer would have won the French Open twice (going by his two finals). He's shown that he's one of the greatest ever. Nadal good on grass but Federer on grass is nadal on clay. The real difference between them is on the hard court were once again Federer is top man and nadal looks below average.
Nadal has a way better record in heads up between the 2 but most of their matches have been played on clay because Nadal simply doesn't get far enough in the later events of the hard court season or it would be a much closer if not better heads up to Federer.
You're writing this as if you were disagreeing with the previous poster, but it seems to me like you're saying pretty much the same thing. Anyhow, I'm not sure that anybody would disagree with the proposition that Federer is an overall better player than Nadal.
I do think, though, that Nadal is probably more of a beast than people give him credit for. He's no master of hard courts, but two Wimbledon finals (one of which he should have won over Federer) is a pretty impressive accomplishment. Both in terms of his actual dominance on clay and his decent accomplishments elsewhere, I think Nadal has a lot more going for him than the average clay court specialist who can only win the French (e.g. Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten).
EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that Nadal is still only 22 (!) and so is going to have plenty of time to win a couple of majors once Federer declines in the next year or two, a process I think has probably already started. I'd guess that 7.5 would probably be a good line for an over/under on majors Nadal wins in his career, something like 3-4 more French and or a Wimbledon along the way.