Statistics in team sports are a very, very grey are which are significantly affected by the quality of your team-mates. Neither of those guys played in individual sport so there are no important metrics by which to fairly compare them to others at an individual level and which also equate exactly with the results of each match. For example: Jordan won X number of NBA titles. He missed many matches in those seasons through injury or whatever correct? Show me a tennis tournament where the winner sat out a match. Similarly, there are many matches in his career where other players scored more points in a match, yet where Jordan's team still won. Statistics can be used very sneakily to paint many pictures which is why the more complex a statistic is, the more likely it doesn't reflect the results. In tennis examples could be aces serves, breakpoints saved, forehand winners... none of them matter whatsoever compared to who won the match. Additionally - if winning an NBA title is the end-all of basketball achievement then Wimbledon is the end-all of tennis achievements. Few will find much fault in that. Federer has 7, Jordan has 6. Federer won 5 in a row, Jordan only 3 (twice). Federer achieved his 7 titles in 15 seasons, Jordan his 6 titles in 17 seasons (only counting the playing years). It's hard to compare like for like isn't it? You can bake things in many way but, ultimately, in neither tennis nor basketball - it never comes back to any particular head to head. Swimming is the most cockahoop kook sport there is in terms of single people racking up tons of achievements. They give out Olympic swimming medals like they are Tic Tacs. Phelps may have the most gold medals on his wall but to compare him to sportspeople like Jordan, Federer etc who had competitive fields and so few chances to compete for the highest achievement by comparison to swimming is a little convenient. A real comparison would see Olympic medals scaled in numbers (divided by four or five) to offer a more realistic comparison between sports and who the relative greats are. Even then it would be a hugely subjective process open to a myriad of lines of argument. If Federer does not fall into the category of dominating his rivals then neither do Jordan or Gretzky. Federer has dominated all of his rivals as a whole moreso than anyone else currently on tour or in modern history. He has bettered the entire tour more times than anyone in the history of the open era - and certainly more times than Nadal. Focussing on one particular head to head when that's not how any tennis rating system looks at it is partisan hack logic and nothing more. Here comes the excuse engine... :lol: Steffi Graf - end of story. Jo Durie had her number and yet Graf is, by miles, the more accomplished player. If I wanted to use the spurious non-logic used above I could then also say: Greg Norman. He was the best player on tour for a number of years... but could never win the achievement which makes a golfer truly great - the Masters. Is he less great than Larry Mize, Ian Woosnan or Ben Crenshaw? You can bake tennis however you want but the fact is no ranking system, tournament draw or the metrics by which players have historically been judged cares one iota about any individual head to heads. Why? Because they matter nothing compared to the achievements of winning tournaments.