According to Agassi logic Nadal is the goat

Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.
 

timnz

Legend
What is the difference?

Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.

What is the difference between having 'barely one slam on clay' and 'having one slam on clay' ?
 

timnz

Legend
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.

Was Agassi just talking about slams?
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
cool, so when's Nadal going to win on anything other than clay? He's won on red clay, blue clay, green clay...
 

Brett UK

Semi-Pro
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.

Might be a self serving opinion of Agassi's given that he won on all surfaces unlike Sampras. What you should do Dim Knight is to wait for Nadal to win more slams than Federer because your spin is not going to change anybody's opinion.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Ummm, I know Agassi was known as a great "ball striker" and a great returner of serve, but I'm almost certain he wasn't known as a master logician or for that matter a particularly keen analyst of the game of tennis. So why should anyone care about "Agassi logic"???
 

Warmaster

Hall of Fame
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.

Because Emerson won most of them in the amateur circuit when Laver, the better player, was playing in the pro circuit.

Laver's pro achievements outweigh Emerson's amateur achievements. Not to mention Laver won the Grand Slam when the open era started, giving him an even greater lead over Emerson.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Might be a self serving opinion of Agassi's given that he won on all surfaces unlike Sampras. What you should do Dim Knight is to wait for Nadal to win more slams than Federer because your spin is not going to change anybody's opinion.

That's an interesting point because although Agassi won the set of slams, mots people see Sampras as the greater player between the two of them.
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
Ummm, I know Agassi was known as a great "ball striker" and a great returner of serve, but I'm almost certain he wasn't known as a master logician or for that matter a particularly keen analyst of the game of tennis. So why should anyone care about "Agassi logic"???

Agassi was giving his own personal opinion on the matter. Why should anyone care? apparently you do and so do the millions of people that read his book.
 
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.
that has to do with amateur vs pro tour...you muppet
 

RNadal

Professional
I guess he meant that when the number of slams are close or even. No way Rafa is ahead of Grandfatherer in the goats dispute.
 

KillerServe

Banned
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.

Well to take your line of thought one step further. Does it not imply then that Agassi is in fact the GOAT since he has fewer slams then Nadal (your criteria #1) and has more wins on even more varied surfaces than Nadal (your criteria #2). Hmmm, Agassi calling himself the GOAT, pure genius the way he slipped that in.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
The number of slam wins has never been the hallmark of GOATHOOD. This is a recent phenomena. Even though Sampras broke the record, he was not widely considered as the GOAT.
 
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.

actually nadal has won 2 out of 4 slams "barely" while fed only has one "barely" win. this arguement supports fed more than nadal.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.
I'm not sure if that's exactly what Agassi meant but to me, for sure, the GOAT is the player who wins all (or close to all) main tennis events as opposed to one who would have won only a few even a lot of times. I'm still waiting for someone to win the 4 slams, WTF and all masters. Whoever can do that will be much more convincing as a GOAT to me than a player winning, let's say, half the slams and masters 7 times+ Not that longevity is not important at all but to me it is less important than versatility: the ability to dominate on any surface/in any environment.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Sounds like Agassi is still bitter by the Thumping Pete gave him relentlessly after all these years with comments like "number of slams don't matter"

Sampras probably took the slam record away from Agassi. If not for Sampras, Agassi doesn't go on that 3 year hiatus from 1995-1998 either

I wouldn't believe much of what Agassi says. Hes one of the greatest ever, but hes a very bitter, attention seeking man
 
E

Ecoplex

Guest
alerting

There must be a slam coming up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rh310

Hall of Fame
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

Yeah. GS titles needs a little flavor or it's a bland number.

Let's add in...number of GS finals, maybe? Fed's got 24. Wow!

Let's add in...number of times in each GS final, maybe? Federer has been in all four GS finals at least 5 times. Holy cow!

Let's add in...number of consecutive GS finals, maybe? Federer has been in 10 and 9 of those. Amazing.

Thanks for pointing out the GS titles alone isn't nearly enough.
 
E

Ecoplex

Guest
Yeah. GS titles needs a little flavor or it's a bland number.

Let's add in...number of GS finals, maybe? Fed's got 24. Wow!

Let's add in...number of times in each GS final, maybe? Federer has been in all four GS finals at least 5 times. Holy cow!

Let's add in...number of consecutive GS finals, maybe? Federer has been in 10 and 9 of those. Amazing.

Thanks for pointing out the GS titles alone isn't nearly enough.

hehe. This is in agreement with what Nadal has said, which is basically "look at the numbers. No one has ever done that".
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That's why all you should have put the OP on your ignore list. Apparently he had no idea that Emerson's slam titles were won during the pre-open era which was when the field was divided into two circuits. Emerson was playing in the amateur which was the weaker than the pro.
 
hehe. This is in agreement with what Nadal has said, which is basically "look at the numbers. No one has ever done that".

Well lets do that .

Nadal has missed 7 slams and is younger . Therefore Federer has had a whole lot more attempts and against weaker competition . But lets leave the weaker competition out and only go by the numbers.

Since Nadal has had far fewer attempts saying Fed has more slams isn't exactly fair.

The only fair way I can think of is a win loss percentage . Nadal has a far higher win loss percentage than Federer .....in fact I believe Nadal has the second highest win loss percentage in slams ever ( #1 is Borg).

Speaking of Borg for example he never even played the AO retired at I think 26....and has 11 slams.

This is why the number of slams one racks up doesn't automatically mean you are the best .....it simply means you are the most consistent .

Back during Borgs day for example the AO was played on grass . I dont think it would be a far stretch to say Borg would have another 6 slams.

Or take Jimmy Connors.....he boycotted the FO and never played.

Or Laver who could not play a slam as an amateur and his slam counts started late in his career. ( or something like that ....never really understood it exactly).

Federer on the other hand has never been injured and never missed a slam and has more attempts than anyone on the planet. That's why he has 17 but it doesn't mean he is the best.....as Nadal proves over and over again by beating him.
 
That's why all you should have put the OP on your ignore list. Apparently he had no idea that Emerson's slam titles were won during the pre-open era which was when the field was divided into two circuits. Emerson was playing in the amateur which was the weaker than the pro.

Actually you should put Agassi on your ignore list because it's his statement.

But you need an ignore list because you can't deal with the truth . So go on living in bliss. Just keep lying to yourself as Nadal continues to beat the crap out of Federer .
 

TennisMD

Professional
That's an interesting point because although Agassi won the set of slams, mots people see Sampras as the greater player between the two of them.

True that's because head to head Sampras has the winning record just as Nadal has against Federer
 

timnz

Legend
But

Difference is former does not include beating Nadal

But he beat the guy who beat Nadal. Nadal entered into the 2009 Roland Garros tournament. It's not Federer's fault that Nadal didn't progress further.

Think about what you are saying...are you saying that since Nadal lost early in the 2009 tournament that it was not possible to have a legitimate winner that year? Should 2009 in the record books have just a blank against the winner column?
 
Last edited:

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Ummm, I know Agassi was known as a great "ball striker" and a great returner of serve, but I'm almost certain he wasn't known as a master logician or for that matter a particularly keen analyst of the game of tennis.
This is true to an extent. His significant tennis experience doesn't mean he's a genius at all. He is clearly not academic so it makes a lot of sense that his reasoning ability would also be relatively low-level by comparison to his tennis accomplishments.

I heard him say stuff in interviews throughout his career which made me and many others think he was somewhat short of a full deck of cards.
 
But he beat the guy who beat Nadal. Nadal entered into the 2009 Roland Garros tournament. It's not Federer's fault that Nadal didn't progress further.

Think about what you are saying...are you saying that since Nadal lost early in the 2009 tournament that it was not possible to have a legitimate winner that year? Should 2009 in the record books have just a blank against the winner column?

Except in all of Nadals attempts that was his one bad year . Up to that point he had won every FO he had ever entered.

Just a couple of weeks later he was forced to pull out of Wimbledon . He was injured and his parents had a divorce . Since that time Nadal has beaten the pants off Soderling .

Feds career is based on luckily not having to face Nadal.

His one FO wasn't a real win and it's why people call it "a hollow victory".

He just can't beat Nadal since 2008 ....therefore he is not the best.

His 17 slams come all either when Nadal was a clay court specialist or when Nadal was not playing . I'm sorry that's not the greatest....the healthiest definitely , the second best ....probably .
 
Yeah. GS titles needs a little flavor or it's a bland number.

Let's add in...number of GS finals, maybe? Fed's got 24. Wow!

Let's add in...number of times in each GS final, maybe? Federer has been in all four GS finals at least 5 times. Holy cow!

Let's add in...number of consecutive GS finals, maybe? Federer has been in 10 and 9 of those. Amazing.

Thanks for pointing out the GS titles alone isn't nearly enough.

Fed is definitely the healthiest player of all time and being the healthiest and second best player of all time gives him a lot of opportunies.....every time Nadal
Is out it leaves the field wide open for Fed. But he is not the best because he can't beat Nadal.....he is healthier though....I'll give you that.
 
The number of slam wins has never been the hallmark of GOATHOOD. This is a recent phenomena. Even though Sampras broke the record, he was not widely considered as the GOAT.

Absolutely. I completely agree. I never heard that specific term for the mythical greatest player ever before I started reading this forum regularly. You simply have a passing of the torch from Laver, to Borg, to Sampras, to Federer and now I firmly believe it will be Nadal. The number of majors will never settle the debate. If Nadal ends up with one more than Federer it will continue, if he equals Federer it will continue, and if he finishes with fewer majors, that eternal debate will continue. When one tries to apply terms like "great ever" or "greatest of all time" to the huge spectrum of great players, that is necessarily true.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
...Feds career is based on luckily not having to face Nadal.
Yes, Federer is lucky Nadal lost to nobodies so often. That makes Nadal the greater player. :lol:

His one FO wasn't a real win and it's why people call it "a hollow victory".
The same is true of Nadal's second Wimbledon then. Berdych in the final - please :roll:

Similarly Mariano Puerta in his first French Open... please :roll:

Similarly take 2, David Ferrer in his most recent French Open... please :roll:

Complete chumps the lot of them.
 
Absolutely. I completely agree. I never heard that specific term for the mythical greatest player ever before I started reading this forum regularly. You simply have a passing of the torch from Laver, to Borg, to Sampras, to Federer and now I firmly believe it will be Nadal. The number of majors will never settle the debate. If Nadal ends up with one more than Federer it will continue, if he equals Federer it will continue, and if he finishes with fewer majors, that eternal debate will continue. When one tries to apply terms like "great ever" or "greatest of all time" to the huge spectrum of great players, that is necessarily true.

Nah....the be all and end all for me is that Fed can't beat Nadal in slam finals.

Is Fed is just healthier and the second greatest....so everytime Nadal is not there Fed benefits and wins .

It just comes down to health.
 
Yes, Federer is lucky Nadal lost to nobodies so often. That makes Nadal the greater player. :lol:


The same is true of Nadal's second Wimbledon then. Berdych in the final - please :roll:

Similarly Mariano Puerta in his first French Open... please :roll:

Similarly take 2, David Ferrer in his most recent French Open... please :roll:

Complete chumps the lot of them.

You do realize that since 2008 when Nadal lost his clay court specialist label Fed can't beat him in a slam . Nadal is undefeated .

So how does that make Fed better? It's insanity .

Is Federer healthier yes he is . You do realize that Nadal missed 7 slams and Fed was there for just about every one of them.

Fed is always there to pick up the pieces when Nadal is injured .....and that's often. But that doesn't make him better not by a long shot.
 
Nah....the be all and end all for me is that Fed can't beat Nadal in slam finals.

Is Fed is just healthier and the second greatest....so everytime Nadal is not there Fed benefits and wins .

It just comes down to health.

I hear you and I wouldn't say that you can be proven wrong either. It would be a valid assessment based on what you know and have considered. Yet, others will continue to have valid arguments for other players, that will be true as well. I would not dispute your contention. It's certainly debatable. The "GOAT" or "greatest tennis player" discussion necessarily contains both subjective and objective components. When you get robust tiers of players at any given point in tennis history, then the answer can turn in different directions, depending on what criterion you emphasize in terms of weighting. Tennis marketing also plays into this heavily, but that's a whole different discussion.
 
Last edited:
E

Ecoplex

Guest
Well lets do that .

Nadal has missed 7 slams and is younger . Therefore Federer has had a whole lot more attempts and against weaker competition . But lets leave the weaker competition out and only go by the numbers.

Since Nadal has had far fewer attempts saying Fed has more slams isn't exactly fair.

The only fair way I can think of is a win loss percentage . Nadal has a far higher win loss percentage than Federer .....in fact I believe Nadal has the second highest win loss percentage in slams ever ( #1 is Borg).

Speaking of Borg for example he never even played the AO retired at I think 26....and has 11 slams.

This is why the number of slams one racks up doesn't automatically mean you are the best .....it simply means you are the most consistent .

Back during Borgs day for example the AO was played on grass . I dont think it would be a far stretch to say Borg would have another 6 slams.

Or take Jimmy Connors.....he boycotted the FO and never played.

Or Laver who could not play a slam as an amateur and his slam counts started late in his career. ( or something like that ....never really understood it exactly).

Federer on the other hand has never been injured and never missed a slam and has more attempts than anyone on the planet. That's why he has 17 but it doesn't mean he is the best.....as Nadal proves over and over again by beating him.

Nadal said this back in 2008, I believe, and he was referring to the numbers Federer had already run up during his peak years. And I believe he added that nobody would ever put up numbers like that again. (at least not during a four year period)
Solid technique goes a long way toward preventing injury.

And we agree that going deep consistantly is a measure of greatness.
I am not alone in believing that Federer's streaks are just as important as his slam total.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
You do realize that since 2008 when Nadal lost his clay court specialist label Fed can't beat him in a slam . Nadal is undefeated .

So how does that make Fed better? It's insanity.
Since 2008 Federer has won 5 majors if you include the 2008 US Open, Nadal has won 7.

Nadal had better get a hurry up if he wants to be the GOAT. He's only got 2 majors closer to Federer in the last four years.

Is Federer healthier yes he is ...Fed is always there to pick up the pieces when Nadal is injured .....and that's often. But that doesn't make him better not by a long shot.
Well, half the world - those with above average IQs - can work out that being healthy is virtually a prerequisite for achieving great things in tennis. Being unhealthy and often injured is surely a sign of weakness. How you could twist that to effectively claiming Federer won his majors unfairly shows the sort of unmitigated fool you are. No-one goes around claiming Pat Cash is better than Edberg because Edberg was allowed to achieve two Wimbledon titles through Cash's misfortune.

Well.. you probably would attempt to but we know what sort of intellect we're dealing with here so it'd be no surprise.
 
Last edited:

rajah84

Semi-Pro
Yes, Federer is lucky Nadal lost to nobodies so often. That makes Nadal the greater player. :lol:

Greatness is measured by how you perform against the top players, not nobodies. :)
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Greatness is measured by how you perform against the top players, not nobodies. :)
Well it's actually not. Tennis greatness is measured by how often you got to the finish line first, i.e. bettered the entire rest of the draw by being undefeated. In-short, how you perform against the entire tour.

Federer did that far better than Nadal ever managed - that is why most tennis records that have been considered most important for decades have Federer at the top of the list.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Yeah. GS titles needs a little flavor or it's a bland number.

Let's add in...number of GS finals, maybe? Fed's got 24. Wow!

Let's add in...number of times in each GS final, maybe? Federer has been in all four GS finals at least 5 times. Holy cow!

Let's add in...number of consecutive GS finals, maybe? Federer has been in 10 and 9 of those. Amazing.

Thanks for pointing out the GS titles alone isn't nearly enough.

Since 2008 Federer has won 5 majors if you include the 2008 US Open, Nadal has won 7.
You two and your facts getting in the way of a good story.

Like a lot of the ex-pros, Andre knows he has to say something controversial to get his name out there - mission accomplished.
 

rajah84

Semi-Pro
Well it's actually not. Tennis greatness is measured by how often you got to the finish line first, i.e. bettered the entire rest of the draw by being undefeated. In-short, how you perform against the entire tour.

Federer did that far better than Nadal ever managed - that is why most tennis records that have been considered most important for decades have Federer at the top of the list.

Of course, but I was responding to your comment from above, which was is also true.
 

DeShaun

Banned
Agassi in his book said the number of slams one wins has never been the test for proving who is the greatest.

The example Agassi gave was that Laver had less slams than Emerson yet everyone considers Laver the greater.

Following Agassi's line of logic therefore Nadal can be considered greater than Federer despite having less slams.

The key Agassi says is who can win on the most surfaces.

Now in further following the Agassi argument ....Fed barely has one slam on clay while Nadal has multiple slams on all surfaces.

Therefore following the Agassi formula Nadal is the greatest.

Excellent use of logic, but your argument rests entirely on an appeal to the authority of Andre Aggasi. All that anyone must do to seriously weaken your argument is to call Andre's credibility into question.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Sounds like Agassi is still bitter by the Thumping Pete gave him relentlessly after all these years with comments like "number of slams don't matter"

Sampras probably took the slam record away from Agassi. If not for Sampras, Agassi doesn't go on that 3 year hiatus from 1995-1998 either

I wouldn't believe much of what Agassi says. Hes one of the greatest ever, but hes a very bitter, attention seeking man

Agreed! In his book "Open" you could clearly make out he was still very bitter about some losses to Pete and bad mouthed him quite a bit.
 
Agreed! In his book "Open" you could clearly make out he was still very bitter about some losses to Pete and bad mouthed him quite a bit.

And McEnroe was a band wagoner, Becker is jealous, wilander is an idiot, courier is a moron...the list goes on and on.

Face it the illusion of Federer as God is quickly coming apart.

Your days are numbered my friend.
 
Excellent use of logic, but your argument rests entirely on an appeal to the authority of Andre Aggasi. All that anyone must do to seriously weaken your argument is to call Andre's credibility into question.

Except a growing number of Pros ,hall of famers and sports writers are also calling Nadal the greatest.

It's the secret that is being whispered everywhere.

You see Fed was declared the goat and now they have a bit of egg on their face.

Can't blame them though we are all guilty.....we all were fooled by the illusion because Fed was simply destroying a bunch of lesser players.

Then came Nadal and with 12 slams at 27 he is not that far away from Fed. More and more people are seeing that Feds dominance was just an illusion ....it was dominance over the tour during a transitional phase.

The jig is up guys.......Fed is being exposed.

I know it , the hall of famers know it......and even Fed knows that Nadal is just better than him.
 
Wiedmer : Nadal may argue for the greatest ever:


His biggest fans have argued for years that Rafael Nadal will eventually become the greatest tennis player ever.

Given his 20-10 career mark against Roger Federer -- the player most of the rest of the world considers the GOAT (greatest of all time) -- such a statement is not without merit.

Especially after this past weekend in Paris, where Nadal became the first player in history to win the same Grand Slam tournament eight times when he again captured the French Open on his beloved red clay.

In case you missed it, that's eight French crowns in nine years, which also just happens to be a 59-1 overall record at the event.

Another perspective: By straight-setting the scrappy munchkin David Ferrer on Sunday, Nadal has now lost a total of 18 sets in nine French tourneys.

As his fellow Spaniard noted after the loss, "Rafael, in important moments, he's the best."

Throw in Nadal's two Wimbledon crowns to date, his one Aussie Open title and lone U.S. Open championship -- as well as the fact that he just turned 27 -- and it's easy for even the most intense Federer defenders to worry that the GOAT's record 17 Grand Slam tourney titles could be in jeopardy, which would end any argument about which player is the best ever.

Yet to watch Nadal through this past fortnight in France is to wonder if he might not already be that, or at least be but one or two non-French Grand Slam titles away from casting great doubt concerning Fed's stranglehold on the GOAT label.

We'll begin with Nadal's record in Grand Slam finals against Federer, which is 6-2. In all other Slam finals, Fed stands 15-1.

Beyond that, Nadal is undefeated against Federer (6-0) aside from Wimbledon, where Fed leads 2-1. The two have never met at the U.S. Open, but Nadal is 5-0 against him at the French and 2-0 at the Aussie Open.

Overall, he's 14-6 in all tournament finals against the GOAT.

It's not just Federer, however, that Nadal personally owns. Following last Friday's epic five-set victory over world No. 1 Novak Djokovic, the Spaniard has a 20-15 lead in that pairing, though most of that has come on the King of Clay's favorite surface, where Nadal leads 13-3.

Yet Nadal also has won 21 of his last 22 matches against the Top 10 on all surfaces. He's played in nine tournaments this year, reached the final in every one and won seven of them.

And he's doing all of this in 2013 after missing seven months between August of 2012 and February of this year with knee issues, which have plagued him for most of his career.

If Nadal's finally 100 percent, or close to it, it's harder to imagine him not passing Federer's 17 Slams than it is to see him on top.

To revisit tennis analyst Mary Carillo's astute observation: "There are times when Federer almost looks frail out there."

His supporters will say he won Wimbledon for a seventh time a year ago, and a fully healthy Federer might gut out a similar victory this summer, though he seems to be suffering from a sore back these days, even if he swears otherwise.

Either way, he's reached but one major final (Wimbledon) since the 2011 French Open and has failed to advance to the final in 11 of his last 13 majors. Five times during that span he's failed to escape the quarterfinals.

In fact, Nadal's chief rival is no longer Federer, but Djokovic, who has reached 12 straight Grand Slam semis, winning five of eight finals over that span. He has six total Slam crowns, trailing only Federer and Nadal among active players.

So now it's on to Wimbledon, where 2012 U.S. Open winner and Olympic gold medalist Andy Murray hopes to rejoin the rest of the Big Four of Nadal, Djokovic and Fed.

But something Nadal mentioned Sunday may already hint at the eventual result in jolly ol' England.

Said the King of Clay, "The things are going more than perfect."

Which could lead to perfectly awful results for everyone in his way in the months, if not years, to come.
 
Last edited:
Top