People on this forum talk all the time about how Federer or Nadal is the greatest or lamest, from shoes to boos, the fact is that this forum is obsessed with the two. My question is, what would tennis BE without the two of them? Would we consider people like Roddick or Murray to be AMAZING and rave about their GOAT possibilities? What about the game itself? Would the ATP have devolved into a convoluted form of the WTA, with all the bashing and thrashing? If the two of them went into other sports like football, and the football forums were ranting about which was the better forward, what would we here at TT boards be talking about? Another aspect of this is; Have Federer and Nadal both contributed to how the game is played now? A lot of people agree that the change in gear contributed to the baseline style of play dominating the tour. A lot of people would also agree that the only way to beat players like Nadal and Federer are to play smart, agressive (At least tactically, as Murray shows) tennis. If those two were taken out of the question, would the baseline game with little-to-no net player be in the number 1 position? This isn't a question about whether or not Nadal or Federer are one dimensional or four dimensional, but the fact is that in order to beat the two, the game that the tour plays has changed. People came at Fed with the pure-baseline game, and he showed that he was better than they were at it, and he would volley to boot. People came at Nadal with the classical clay game of grinding and construction, but Nadal proved time and again that he was the better worker. The tour (and game) had to change. These two players made it happen. The third, and final perspective I'll ask for is; Are Nadal and Federer their own players, or are they a product of tennis? That is to say, are Nadal and Federer the players they are because that is how they wanted to play, or is it simply the result of "This is what the game was, and they did this to beat it". To put it another way, do they define their styles, or does the tour define them? I thought about this when I watched the AO09 final and couldn't help but wonder, here we have two AMAZING players, but both play the game radically differently (Or are they all that different?). What brings about the difference. The two are obviously good, but there is no clear cut way to define "good" in tennis (Which I believe accounts for why the two have fans who seem to thrive on hating the other) other than the wins and loss record. That being said, how did these two radically different players come to be? Did they say "I am going to play THIS way and that's final!" or was it because that was how they won matches (AKA "I win when I hit this shot, so I'm going to hit that shot again)? Interesting things to think about. I'm eager to see what others have to say. Feel free to post whatever you feel, but please refrain from personal comments about other people's OPINIONS (AKA trolling!!). Zig.