This isn't a hate thread, mind you. I think what Nadal has accomplished this year is phenomenal. While it has caused me a fair bit of anguish, since it has deprived Fed and Nole of a lot of success, there is no denying that Rafa has had a year for the ages, considering the circumstances. I concede, albeit with reluctance, that Nadal may very well be remembered as the best/most accomplished of his era. His achievements speak for themselves.
Regardless, I can't ever see him as being "greater" than Fed for the same reason I can't view Ted Williams as being greater than DiMaggio. It's a subjective thing, I guess, and I wouldn't fault anyone for vehemently disagreeing with me. What any reasonable person can admit, though, is that this era was tailor made for Nadal. That's not his fault, and there's a fine line between admitting that and not acknowledging his rightful status in the annals of tennis history, which is as one of the greatest ever. But let it be known: there is pretty much literally nothing that could have been done to assure Nadal had more success in this era, other than avoiding the injury bug. Same goes, unfortunately, for Novak, which is a drag to admit. The courts are slower now than they have been at any point in tennis history. The racquet technology enables players to hit shots from defensive positions and return them with interest in a way it never has before. It used to be that on indoor courts, once you took charge in a rally, the other player would have to produce something special to neutralize the point. Now, you see guys merely bunt the ball back while on their back foot,in an extremely awkward position, and the ball will land on the back of the line and the point will be on level terms once more. It's so seamless and commonplace that long rallies with seemingly "amazing" gets barely register in the minds of most tennis fans. The balance of power has shifted, some might say irrevocably, to the defensive-minded player. That's why, to me, there isn't much parity in today's game. Once you've learned how to play on one surface, you've learned how to play on all of them. There are no single-surface specialists, because the adjustments you would have to make from one surface to another have been rendered all but obsolete. That's why todays "all-surface" players are anything but.
That doesn't diminish Nadals accomplishments for me, but it does add some clarity as to how he was able to be so successful despite playing the same type of game on every surface, employing the same rudimentary game plan for years without any seismic adjustments. I hope people reading this thread can see the difference between me hating on Nadal and me attempting to explain why he hit the jackpot playing in todays game.
Sure, Nadal to date has conquered his rivals. That script might be re-written at some point. After all, it wasn't until age 29-30 that the narrative of Federer only losing to Nadal consistently was changed. But it probably won't be. Nadal has a stranglehold on nearly all of his significant rivals. Colour me extremely impressed, but not shocked; after all, in this era once you learn how to play on one surface you learn how to play on them all. In that same vain, once you learn how to master one style of play (a margin-based counter-punching game with occasional offense), you master them all. That's the main reason I can't buy into the notion that the competition tennis has gotten much much stronger in the past 5 years, approaching a level we have never seen before. The level of baseline play is indeed unprecedented, but the all-court component is gone, due in large part to the technology and gradual death of fast surfaces. What's so gaudy about that? That's like if the NBA abolished the 3 point line. It'd go from a league with a good balance between rim-attackers and shooters to a league dominated by guys driving to the hole all game long. In that league, players like Bird, Petrovic and Reggie Miller wouldn't look so hot anymore. After all, why work on a skill that simply isn't relevant anymore? Volleys, chip and charges, stealthy approaches, and to an extent slice backhands, they are all merely complementary skills to have. Nothing more, nothing less. That is just absurd to me. Right now, if you are the best baseliner in tennis, you are the best PLAYER in tennis. It's a startlingly tight correlation. In the 90s, that didn't guarantee you were the best. Oh sure, Agassi and Chang were plenty successful.
But Sampras was the undisputed player of the 90s. Borg was the greatest baseliner of his era and the greatest player, but he served and volleyed at Wimby and developed a workmanlike net game. Laver was the greatest of his era but Rosewall was his superior from the back of the court, many would argue. Laver compensated for this by improving his running forehand and developing a lethal drive BH to combat Rosewall's slice. In other words, these guys couldn't fall back on their mastery of one facet of the game. On paper, Nadal will rival all of these players. Heck, he might be better whichever way you'd wanna argue it. But to me, I'll always feel that the Nadal-breed of players got the lions share of the luck playing in today's game. Meaning, baseliners with topspin-rife shots and counterpunching tendencies.
How does this tie in with Federer? Simply put, I am of the belief that if you put him in any era, he would be immensely successful. He is a jack of all trades in the same way Laver was. He beat Sampras serving and volleying. He beat Djokovic, Agassi, Murray and to a lesser extent Nadal from the back of the court in the biggest stages of the game. His variety ensured that he would be utterly dominant on fast and medium speed courts, and tremendously successful on slow ones (and don't tell me there are still lightning fast courts in todays game). At his peak you simply could not serve the man off the court. His defensive return was almost as good as Agassi's offensive return. His passing shots were elite on all surfaces. He took your time away on fast surfaces. On slow ones, you were guaranteed a war of attrition if intended to rally with him.
I believe his net game was underrated. It wasn't as great as Pete's or Rafters or Edbergs, but (of course) in this era it didn't need to be. That's why his net game during Wimby 2001 was better than it was when he was in his prime. Why hone a skill that wasn't all that necessary anymore? All I know is, many tried defeating Sampras using his own his own game during his reign at Wimbledon. Only two succeeded. And the other one might've had the best or second best first serve of his era, and possibly one of the 10 best overall serves of all time (Krajicek). Federer didn't have that luxury, especially at 19 when his serve was still developing. That counts for something.
Anyways, I'm not gonna say that i KNOW that Fed could dominate in any era and Nadal wouldnt, because to speak with such conviction is the mark of a foolish man. I merely believe it to be the case. I believe that Nadal, to dominate from the 60s-90s to the same extent that he did in the 2000's, he would had to have dramatically altered his game. Could he have been able to? Knowing his resolve, I wouldn't put it entirely past him. But I also believe that Federer wouldn't have to undergo any significant paradigm shift to succeed anywhere, on any surface and in any conditions. His game is timeless in a way that Nadal's isn't. While I have limitless respect for Nadal's prowess as a player, Federer has already proven (to me) that he is the greater player. Just one guys opinion.
), and Edberg couldn't dominate with his forehand. All of these guys adopted the style of play that they did because they all had deficiencies that prevented them from having an all-encompassing game. Doesn't really apply to Fed that much.
). He didn't have great reach or a great defensive return and often cheated towards one side and left him susceptible to getting aced. Clearly his offensive return blows Fed's and just about everybody's out of the water -- nobody attacked second serves like him. 
