Originally Posted by dominikk1985
yes but even if you consider 04-09 (which is highly unfair towards nadal who was probably as much pre prime as fed is now past prime most of that time) and non clay (again unfair towards nadal) then the record is 4-4. prime federer while not getting totally owned never dominated baby nadal.
If there were only prime vs prime matches equally distributed between all surfaces the reocord would have been more equal but still nadal would win about 60%. this is a serious dent in Feds resumee (he is still greater than nadal though) which pete never had.
I still argue that fed is the goat but I would strongly argue against that he is one of the most dominant athletes ever. there just happened to be noone better to date in tennis.
There has never been a comparable situation in tennis history where the player in consideration has, the majority of time he has played his main rival, played on his weakest surface and his opponents strongest surface. This has created a very strange anomoly. That is why head to head should never be spoken of except referencing surface. Imagine what the borg/mcenroe head to head would have been if they had played the majority of their matches on clay? (Note: Federer leads Nadal 8 to 6 non-clay)