I don't think wtf or even the number of years at #1 have any significance if it is just a matter of deciding who is the better player. why not settle that issue first before going after a far more complex mythical, imaginary GOAT concept. 1. have they played each other enough times? in other words, how large is the sample size? how many of those matches were the finals? a. nadal won 21 times. how many of those wins were collected in the finals? roger has 10 wins so how many of those were in the finals? 2. how many times they have faced each other at slams on all 3 different surfaces? 3. finally how has each fared against his greatest rivals? that should settle it.