REKX
Rookie
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, I appreciate them both, and I always support them. If they are playing each other, generally I would want Federer to win if it is on grass, on clay I would want Nadal to win. But I enjoy them both.
Federer has recently beaten Nadal three times and people are using this and making all kinds of crazy claims. The truth is they are both near the end of their careers and are not even playing close to their best.
Look at the stats of the Miama final and how many unforced error's Nadal made. At his prime he would never make these kind of errors. Federer on the other hand made very few unforced errors, but at his greatest form he made many unforced errors but many many more winners.
Look at Federer's comments, after the 2017 Aus Final he said he wouldn't have minded if he lost, and he wished he could have shared the prize with Nadal. In 2009, he cried saying it's so hard.
This is the difference, in 2017 they are kind of hanging on but around the 2009 era it was completely different, they were both in and around their greatest form which is why for obvious reasons the 2009 Aus Open was higher caliber tennis. 2017 was amazing as well because the matchup is exciting, but no where near as 2008-2009.
Whether Federer or Nadal won all their head to heads in 2017, my ranking of the two will not change. They are defined by what they achieved at their prime, at their best and will always be - not like some users here who are saying 3 wins against Nadal changes everything - it does not.
Federer for breaking the record of grand slams, dominating every person except Nadal, many records which may never be broken. Nadal the greatest clay court player of all time, beat Prime Federer on grass in 2008, which I don't think any player in history could have done - Federer was playing flawless till the final. So in my books Federer is the greatest and Nadal is number 2, Sampras is number 3.
After 2009/2010 Federer definitely had half a step of decline, whilst Nadal got better and won more.
Their rivalry will be remembered not of a few results in 2017 but what happened in their prime. 2005-2009 is the key era for me between the two because Federer was in his greatest form in those years and Nadal was clay great from day 1 but transitioned into an all surface player.
After Nadal beat Federer at the 2009 Australian Open final, that in my book was the end of Federer's greatest form, and at that point the head to head favored Nadal 13-6 because that included many hard courts, grass, clay and they were both in and around their greatest form.
Federer has recently beaten Nadal three times and people are using this and making all kinds of crazy claims. The truth is they are both near the end of their careers and are not even playing close to their best.
Look at the stats of the Miama final and how many unforced error's Nadal made. At his prime he would never make these kind of errors. Federer on the other hand made very few unforced errors, but at his greatest form he made many unforced errors but many many more winners.
Look at Federer's comments, after the 2017 Aus Final he said he wouldn't have minded if he lost, and he wished he could have shared the prize with Nadal. In 2009, he cried saying it's so hard.
This is the difference, in 2017 they are kind of hanging on but around the 2009 era it was completely different, they were both in and around their greatest form which is why for obvious reasons the 2009 Aus Open was higher caliber tennis. 2017 was amazing as well because the matchup is exciting, but no where near as 2008-2009.
Whether Federer or Nadal won all their head to heads in 2017, my ranking of the two will not change. They are defined by what they achieved at their prime, at their best and will always be - not like some users here who are saying 3 wins against Nadal changes everything - it does not.
Federer for breaking the record of grand slams, dominating every person except Nadal, many records which may never be broken. Nadal the greatest clay court player of all time, beat Prime Federer on grass in 2008, which I don't think any player in history could have done - Federer was playing flawless till the final. So in my books Federer is the greatest and Nadal is number 2, Sampras is number 3.
After 2009/2010 Federer definitely had half a step of decline, whilst Nadal got better and won more.
Their rivalry will be remembered not of a few results in 2017 but what happened in their prime. 2005-2009 is the key era for me between the two because Federer was in his greatest form in those years and Nadal was clay great from day 1 but transitioned into an all surface player.
After Nadal beat Federer at the 2009 Australian Open final, that in my book was the end of Federer's greatest form, and at that point the head to head favored Nadal 13-6 because that included many hard courts, grass, clay and they were both in and around their greatest form.
Don;t worry nadal still leads by 9 match wins, no need to panic.
