Some people say that Roger can't be considered the best player of all time, because he is 7-13 against Nadal and 2-6 against him in Grand Slams. So, here's an interesting thought: let's go back in time and pretend that Roger lost one round earlier in the 2005, 2007 and 2008 French Opens and only got to the 2006 Final. So instead of 1 SF and 3 Finals losses to Nadal, he would have one finals loss to Nadal and two sf and one qf loss to other players. This would still be an EXCELLENT record and superior to Pete's result. But it would also remove THREE losses to Nadal (two of them finals) And again, let's pretend that instead of losing to Nadal in 5 claycourt Masters series events, that he got to only 3 of those finals and lost in the semis of the other two. Again, that removes three more losses to Nadal. Now if all of the other results remained the same, this would be the new head to head: overall: 7-7 Grand Slams: Nadal 3-2 So if Roger had lost earlier at these events, a lot of people might think he was a BETTER player! Weird.