What is more impressive streak - Federer's or Nadal's

[McEnroeisanartist]

A lot of posters keep bringing up Nadal's record of 9 consecutive years of winning at least one grand slam as this amazing achievement, which it is. It is is astonishing consistency and durability.

I am sure I am biased in my Federer fanaticism, but isn't Federer's 4 consecutive years of winning at least two grand slams, more impressive?

Federer winning a grand slam for 8 consecutive years is at least close to Nadal's streak.

Nadal has never been and is not close to Federer's streak.

Therefore, Federer's streak is much more impressive.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

23 consecutive slam SF's is insane also.

 

[mike danny]

I would take fed's 3 years of winning 3 slams more impressive.

And he was 1 point away from making it 4

 

[furryballs]

four multi slam seasons in a row is a far bigger achievement

 

[furryballs]

nadals recors are basically all brown...either clay or cr%p or streaky

 

[moonballs]

A: 9 consecutive years of winning at least one grand slam

B: 4 consecutive years of winning at least two grand slams

C: Two streaks of five consecutive years of winning a slam (W & USO)

D: 23 consecutive SF in slams

The objective way of thinking which one is more impressive is to judge how soon the record will be matched by someone else. For that I rate

C > D > B > A

But only time will tell...