*** Official Tennis Thread ****

[Willrey]

Queens should be hnnnngh today.

Muricans explain to my why you can't play tennis anymore, you used to be so daym good now the sport is completely dominated by Europe. I can guess you could say other sports get in the way but those sports have always been there when you were good at tennis, explain yourselves!!!

[oe7Leo]

Queens should be hnnnngh today.

Muricans explain to my why you can't play tennis anymore, you used to be so daym good now the sport is completely dominated by Europe. I can guess you could say other sports get in the way but those sports have always been there when you were good at tennis, explain yourselves!!!

not american, but it's a vicious circle.

no top player = no role model/idol to look up to = no kids trying to emulate them

i don't think you can blame the development system. The USTA is massive and well funded. But of course, there will never be as many kids playing tennis vs basketball/football/baseball

[bdolzz]

At first I thought nadal would never pass up federer because at that time nadal could beat federer but lose to a lot of different players but federer only lost to nadal.

But now it's not up for debate. How can you be the goat when you aren't even the best of your generation. Nadal is dominating. And he has slaughtered fed over and over again. Yes, federer is past his prime but its so mental now. Rafa was in his head after beating him a couple times.

He's got a losing record against rafa and rafa has almost caught up to him in slams. This one is a no brainer.
The only argument you can make is saying that most of his slams came from clay.

I think it's unfair that Wimbledon slowed down their grass courts ( the year rafa beat fed).

It's hard to compare against other generations like laver. Laver would have the most slams by far if he hasn't been banned from playing the slams for like 3-4 years.

It would have been interesting to see how nadal would have fared against prime Agassi or prime Sampras though.

"How can you be the goat when you aren't the best of your generation?" Not sure what your point is, Federer was the best of HIS generation. This is no longer his generation. He's 32 years old now, 7-8 years ago Fed was dominating the way Nadal is now.

[BDPfit]

Queens should be hnnnngh today.

Muricans explain to my why you can't play tennis anymore, you used to be so daym good now the sport is completely dominated by Europe. I can guess you could say other sports get in the way but those sports have always been there when you were good at tennis, explain yourselves!!!

Sucks bro, wish I got into tennis as a young kid. Played baseball and football like all Muricans.

It's definitely making a comeback though. Seeing some really talented kids out there... I enjoy watching the Europeans tho cause it adds some variety in the sports I watch


Edit: IMO America is obsessed with "bigger faster stronger" too which is why we see so many huge service guys that don't have much game outside of that. Started with Sampras' serve, then Roddick and now Isner. We need some more well-rounded players

[BDPfit]

yeah definitely agreed... not too sure what to expect from him in the following slams. would be delighted if he did well @ wimbledon tho. can wait for it to start ...

Yeah I like Stan's demeanor so he's a pretty easy guy to root for. The only thing I DONT like is Roger not being the best Swiss player currently

[Dominik]

"How can you be the goat when you aren't the best of your generation?" Not sure what your point is, Federer was the best of HIS generation. This is no longer his generation. He's 32 years old now, 7-8 years ago Fed was dominating the way Nadal is now.

Nice to see someone here gets it. This was his generation and for 3 straight years he smoked them:



Many Nadal fans dismiss it as a weak era without Nadal and Djokovic (a player he has beaten twice this year at age 32) while conveniently ignoring the fact Nadal is dominating in a weak clay era. I keep asking: where are the clay specialists?

For 6 years Federer didn't lose before the semis in a slam. Reached 10 straight slam finals, winning 8 of them (only Nadal stopped him at the French from winning the "Grand Slam" two years in a row). Had a finals streak of 24-0.

Their H2H record is 50% on Nadal's terms (clay) which unfairly skews it in Nadal's favor. Had Nadal been good enough to consistently make finals in Roger's best events (Wimbledon, US Open, ATP year-end championships, Cincinnati masters, Halle, etc.) the H2H would be even.

Since Federer never beat Nadal at the French and only twice in clay Masters, that's 13 losses on clay that now hurt his legacy. There wouldn't be a GOAT debate at this stage if he either never reached those finals or simply tanked to avoid Nadal on his strongest surface.

[ShweezyBTFO]

Nice to see someone here gets it. This was his generation and for 3 straight years he smoked them:



Many Nadal fans dismiss it as a weak era without Nadal and Djokovic (a player he has beaten twice this year at age 32) while conveniently ignoring the fact Nadal is dominating in a weak clay era. I keep asking: where are the clay specialists?

For 6 years Federer didn't lose before the semis in a slam. Reached 10 straight slam finals, winning 8 of them (only Nadal stopped him at the French from winning the "Grand Slam" two years in a row). Had a finals streak of 24-0.

Their H2H record is 50% on Nadal's terms (clay) which unfairly skews it in Nadal's favor. Had Nadal been good enough to consistently make finals in Roger's best events (Wimbledon, US Open, ATP year-end championships, Cincinnati masters, Halle, etc.) the H2H would be even.

Since Federer never beat Nadal at the French and only twice in clay Masters, that's 13 losses on clay that now hurt his legacy. There wouldn't be a GOAT debate at this stage if he either never reached those finals or simply tanked to avoid Nadal on his strongest surface.

Kneedal fans are honestly worse than all NBE fans. Literally the dumbest fanbase in all of sports.

[nvrstopworking]

If Nadal doesn't make it to at LEAST the semis at Wimbledon I don't want to hear chit about this "GOAT" talk for the rest of the year.

[Dominik]

Kneedal fans are honestly worse than all NBE fans. Literally the dumbest fanbase in all of sports.

Many of them can't see the obvious: if Federer sucked on clay like Nadal sucks on fast hardcourts and indoors there wouldn't be a GOAT debate until Nadal gets 17-18 slams since Federer wouldn't have been in those finals to take those 13 beatings and create a lopsided H2H. Nadal is the one who didn't keep up his end of the bargain.

We saw this week what Nadal is like on a fast court. He got smoked 6-4 6-1 by a 29 year old ranked #82 who mainly competes on the ATP Challenger tour. Meanwhile Federer was the clear #1 fast courts. 6 ATP year-end championships titles. 7 Wimbledons. 5 US Opens. 5 Cincinnati Masters titles. Going for 7 Halle titles today.

Cliffs: on Nadal's best surface in his pet events Federer was good enough to be No. 2. In Roger's best events Nadal only showed up a couple of times and only beat him once in a final — 2008 Wimbledon. That took nearly 5 hours and could have gone either way.

[Dominik]

Old man Federer.

[ShweezyBTFO]

If Nadal doesn't make it to at LEAST the semis at Wimbledon I don't want to hear chit about this "GOAT" talk for the rest of the year.

2012:





2013:








2014:


Looking forward to seeing the next guy to take this fraud out.

[Dominik]

Looking forward to seeing the next guy to take this fraud out.

He doesn't count 2012 as a loss because of his knee:

"I don’t count 2012 like a loss,” the left-hander said. “I was totally injured from my knee. I didn’t play anything for seven months. Last year I tried. I was not well enough.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Reaction.aspx

Couldn't play tennis for 7 months but the knee was apparently fine for golf:

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Rafael...icolo5799.html

[anibani]

Yeah I like Stan's demeanor so he's a pretty easy guy to root for. The only thing I DONT like is Roger not being the best Swiss player currently

so much this

Many of them can't see the obvious: if Federer sucked on clay like Nadal sucks on fast hardcourts and indoors there wouldn't be a GOAT debate until Nadal gets 17-18 slams since Federer wouldn't have been in those finals to take those 13 beatings and create a lopsided H2H. Nadal is the one who didn't keep up his end of the bargain.

We saw this week what Nadal is like on a fast court. He got smoked 6-4 6-1 by a 29 year old ranked #82 who mainly competes on the ATP Challenger tour. Meanwhile Federer was the clear #1 fast courts. 6 ATP year-end championships titles. 7 Wimbledons. 5 US Opens. 5 Cincinnati Masters titles. Going for 7 Halle titles today.

Cliffs: on Nadal's best surface in his pet events Federer was good enough to be No. 2. In Roger's best events Nadal only showed up a couple of times and only beat him once in a final — 2008 Wimbledon. That took nearly 5 hours and could have gone either way.

^this. Nadal is not close to Federers GOAT status. he's dominance is unheard of and Nadal doesnt even come close to what Federer has achieved. Add his character and style to all his wins and he will be the GOAT for a long time…

Old man Federer.

that was a hilarious moment….

[ajctennis]

What are you talking about? Unmatched dominance . Laver would have the most slams right now if he wasn't banned from slams for 3-4 years.

Also Sampras was number 1 for like 6 years wasn't he?

I don't even like nadal but I don't see how he wouldn't be considered the goat when he's right on Feds tail with slams and he had a winning record over Fed.

When fed 1st won his slams it was a weak era. Old Agassi , Hewitt and roddick. Compare that with the last 4-6 years. Hasn't nadal had to beat Murray djokovich or fed in most of his slams?

Are we really disputing the fact that rafa isn't the greatest clay courter of all time as well?

That's just my main point. Can you really be considered the best when your biggest rival has almost as many slams as you and a winning record.

Only way fed takes the goat back is if it was found that nadal has been doping/ steroids.

When fed lost Wimbledon to nadal that's when nadal was in his head completely IMO.

And no one gives a crap if you almost won. You either win or you lose.

As A great man once said, if you ain't first, you're last

[ShweezyBTFO]

What are you talking about? Unmatched dominance . Laver would have the most slams right now if he wasn't banned from slams for 3-4 years.

Also Sampras was number 1 for like 6 years wasn't he?

I don't even like nadal but I don't see how he wouldn't be considered the goat when he's right on Feds tail with slams and he had a winning record over Fed.

When fed 1st won his slams it was a weak era. Old Agassi , Hewitt and roddick. Compare that with the last 4-6 years. Hasn't nadal had to beat Murray djokovich or fed in most of his slams?

Are we really disputing the fact that rafa isn't the greatest clay courter of all time as well?

That's just my main point. Can you really be considered the best when your biggest rival has almost as many slams as you and a winning record.

Only way fed takes the goat back is if it was found that nadal has been doping/ steroids.

When fed lost Wimbledon to nadal that's when nadal was in his head completely IMO.

And no one gives a crap if you almost won. You either win or you lose.

As A great man once said, if you ain't first, you're last

this guy is making a strong case for least intelligent sports miscer right now.

[anibani]

I don't even like nadal but I don't see how he wouldn't be considered the goat when he's right on Feds tail with slams and he had a winning record over Fed.

That's just my main point. Can you really be considered the best when your biggest rival has almost as many slams as you and a winning record

just that winning record doesn't make him greater than Fed.


and:

Are we really disputing the fact that rafa isn't the greatest clay courter of all time as well?

no we aren't.

[Willrey]

2012:

[youtube]aWM0kF6XMZQ[/youtube



2013:


[youtube]WtNf2lbd4Q8[/youtube





2014:


Looking forward to seeing the next guy to take this fraud out.

mate i'm a Federer fan but the fact that you are calling him a fraud makes you worse than any "Kneedal" fan, the fact that you can't respect what he has done and his record is sickening, how the fukk do you fraud your way to that many grand slams?? If you honestly can't even respect that he is an incredible player then you don't deserve to watch tennis.

[Willrey]

Sucks bro, wish I got into tennis as a young kid. Played baseball and football like all Muricans.

It's definitely making a comeback though. Seeing some really talented kids out there... I enjoy watching the Europeans tho cause it adds some variety in the sports I watch


Edit: IMO America is obsessed with "bigger faster stronger" too which is why we see so many huge service guys that don't have much game outside of that. Started with Sampras' serve, then Roddick and now Isner. We need some more well-rounded players

Interesting brah, especially about the bigger, faster stronger thing. I wouldn't say any of the American players are particularly athletic imo but they all seem to have massive serves!. It's quite similar in the UK you play football/rugby/cricket and tennis is expensive as fukk to play over here and we have a snobby middle class system which most people agree needs to be changed

[Dominik]

When fed 1st won his slams it was a weak era. Old Agassi , Hewitt and roddick. Compare that with the last 4-6 years. Hasn't nadal had to beat Murray djokovich or fed in most of his slams?

The clay era Nadal has competed in is a strong candidate for the weakest ever.

You want proof? How many slams have Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro, and co. won on clay?

ZERO.

At least Federer was beating guys in slams who'd actually won those slams before or on the same surface.

Hewitt won the US Open in 2001. Federer double bageled him in the 2004 final. Agassi had won the US Open twice before. Safin had won a slam on hardcourt (US Open, def. Sampras) a few years before he lost to Federer in the AO 2004 final and he then beat Federer in 2005 and went on to win the event so he was no chump.

We know Djokovic is a better hardcourt player than Nadal with 5 hardcourt slams but how does that help him in a Roland Garros final on... clay?

[ajctennis]

@schweezy, what was so unintelligent about my post. Do you even play/ watch tennis? ( I'm curious)

Clearly I must be a moron for agreeing with Agassi( one of the greats) and the best returner ever to play.

@ the fed fans , so if nadal wins as many slams or more slams then fed would you concede the goat to him?

I just think the whole weak clay court era is bs and irrelevant. Who the hell would have a chance against nadal 3/5 sets on clay anyways.

And lets be real. Hewitt was one of the ****tiest number 1s of all time. For awhile for fed it was old Agassi, Safin ( when he actually tried and wasn't doing coke/ screwing hookers), roddick, nalbandian, and Hewitt.

[BDPfit]

mate i'm a Federer fan but the fact that you are calling him a fraud makes you worse than any "Kneedal" fan, the fact that you can't respect what he has done and his record is sickening, how the fukk do you fraud your way to that many grand slams?? If you honestly can't even respect that he is an incredible player then you don't deserve to watch tennis.

Lol shweezy is a complete joke, he doesn't belong in any serious tennis discussion. It's hilarious when fans get so butthurt about a particular player or team


I'm obviously a Nadal fan so I'm hoping he does surpass Roger in the near future, but I can clearly see that Roger is the GOAT at this point in time (the sig is just showing my support for Rafa). But I think Nadal definitely has a chance to pass him

[BDPfit]

The clay era Nadal has competed in is a strong candidate for the weakest ever.

You want proof? How many slams have Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro, and co. won on clay?

ZERO.

Woah woah woah woaaahhhhh. I can agree that you may have a case in calling this a weak clay era (although I haven't really looked into much at this point)

But this is a TERRIBLE argument lol. Nadal has won 9/10 years with Federer being the only other person to win in those 10 years. And we all know what he does to Fed on clay. So of course no one else will have a title to their name lol. Awful argument.

Now, what you can do is access the way the individual players' clay performance and make an opinion if they would have had a serious shot at a title in an era without Nadal. For example, Murray is awful on clay so he's out of the running. But I believe Djoko could easily have 2-3 clay titles in a different era. Ferrer was good enough to have a chance at one. Plus his game is well suited for clay. And of course, Federer would have most likely been winning a handful had Nadal not shown up.

So while I haven't done enough looking into the players' clay performances to really dispute it being a weak era, your initial argument was really, really weak




Edit: it's like the argument that Fed's overall era was weak... Except people aren't saying that just because they didn't get many titles (that's fckn obvious because Fed got em all - that's what made him special). The argument exists because the quality of tennis players wasn't as good as the modern era. When you're talking about two guys who have dominated their respective slams, quantity means nothing when judging the competition... Quality assesment is the only way to form an opinion.

[Dominik]

@ the fed fans , so if nadal wins as many slams or more slams then fed would you concede the goat to him?

I'll still have some reservations until he wins a few more slams off clay and the year-end championship.

Incredible on clay, a solid player on slow hardcourts but on fast courts he's not even Top 10.

Feel free to answer these questions for me:

1. Is Nadal one of the greatest players of the modern era at the Australian Open with 1 title?
2. Is Nadal one of the greatest players of the modern era at Wimbledon with 2 titles?
3. Is Nadal one of the greatest players of the modern era at the US Open with 2 titles?
4. Is Nadal one of the greatest players of the modern era at the ATP year-end championship 0 titles?

I just think the whole weak clay court era is bs and irrelevant. Who the hell would have a chance against nadal 3/5 sets on clay anyways.

So Nadal winning 9* out of 10 French Opens (*exception being Federer in 2011) against guys who have never won a French Open before doesn't equal "weak clay era" but Federer beating Agassi/Hewitt/Safin/Roddick in hardcourt slam finals who'd all at least won a slam on hardcourt equals "weak era?" Got it.

As for challenging Nadal, ever watch Gustavo Kuerten in his prime?

[Dominik]

But this is a TERRIBLE argument lol. Nadal has won 9/10 years with Federer being the only other person to win in those 10 years. And we all know what he does to Fed on clay. So of course no one else will have a title to their name lol. Awful argument.

It's an awful argument because it cuts right to the heart of Nadal's lack of competition?

In those 9 finals over 10 years he faced:

-Puerta once (0 slams and had only been past the 3rd round ONCE in a slam)

-Soderling once (0 slams, only been past the QF in a slam twice in his career)

-Ferrer once (slamless cigarette smoker in his 30s who openly admits to tanking and says he can't beat the top players... GTFO)

Wow strong competition.

Lastly:

-Djokovic twice (0 French Open titles)

-And Federer 4 times which confirms how weak it was that Fed was always making those finals when he's more of a fast court player, but he'd still won 0 French Opens until they met in 2011.

I won't deny Federer's competition on grass for most of those Wimbledon titles was equally weak (Nadal included) but he's won 9 slams on hardcourts to Nadal's 3, where the competition is much stronger than clay and grass since most of the tour is played on it.

He also successfully defended titles on hardcourts, something Nadal has never done.

[BDPfit]

It's an awful argument because it cuts right to the heart of Nadal's lack of competition?

In those 9 finals over 10 years he faced:

-Puerta once (0 slams and had only been past the 3rd round ONCE in a slam)

-Soderling once (0 slams, only been past the QF in a slam twice in his career)

-Ferrer once (slamless cigarette smoker in his 30s)

Wow strong competition.

Lastly:

-Djokovic twice (0 French Open titles)

-And Federer 4 times which confirms how weak it was that Fed was always making those finals when he's more of a fast court player, but he'd still won 0 French Opens until they met in 2011.

I won't deny Federer's competition on grass for most of those Wimbledon titles was equally weak (Nadal included) but he's won 9 slams on hardcourts to Nadal's 3, where the competition is much stronger than clay and grass since most of the tour is played on it.

He also successfully defended titles on hardcourts, something Nadal has never done.

No, it's a horrible argument because it only applies to Nadal's first 2-3 years of winning. That's the only time when his competitors could have even had a chance at a clay title... Before he came along. Since then it's been all him so OF COURSE they don't have titles. We wouldn't be talking about Nadal if they did!

Just like Fed on grass as you mentioned... The argument wouldn't be that his competition was weak simply because they're void of titles (he hogged them all!). The argument would be because you honestly and fairly assessed the quality of his opponents and found them to be sub-par.


I would have no problem if you made this claim for Nadal's clay competition because I haven't looked into the players' individual clay performances enough to really make an informed opinion. But the number of slams the opponents have is MEANINGLESS in either argument because we're talking about guys that DOMINATED their respective eras. Domination means that the other players won't have a nice list of accolades next to their names......

[BDPfit]

-Ferrer once (slamless cigarette smoker in his 30s who openly admits to tanking and says he can't beat the top players... GTFO)

Also this is complete bs and you know it. He admitted that just this past match with Nadal as being the FIRST AND ONLY time he's every felt that way in his career. Ferrer has made a living and a reputation off of being a grinder who never ever gave up. He's like 32 or 33 now, and he never had the skill of a top notch player... He was a hard worker and a grinder, which is tough to keep with age.

Ferrer has ALWAYS been known for his work ethic and hard play on the court. C'mon man, that's weak to go after a recent statement from a 32+ year old player and take it extremely out of context.

[Willrey]

It's an awful argument because it cuts right to the heart of Nadal's lack of competition?

In those 9 finals over 10 years he faced:

-Puerta once (0 slams and had only been past the 3rd round ONCE in a slam)

-Soderling once (0 slams, only been past the QF in a slam twice in his career)

-Ferrer once (slamless cigarette smoker in his 30s who openly admits to tanking and says he can't beat the top players... GTFO)

Wow strong competition.

Lastly:

-Djokovic twice (0 French Open titles)

-And Federer 4 times which confirms how weak it was that Fed was always making those finals when he's more of a fast court player, but he'd still won 0 French Opens until they met in 2011.

I won't deny Federer's competition on grass for most of those Wimbledon titles was equally weak (Nadal included) but he's won 9 slams on hardcourts to Nadal's 3, where the competition is much stronger than clay and grass since most of the tour is played on it.

He also successfully defended titles on hardcourts, something Nadal has never done.

Although Federer is good on fast courts he is still incredible on clay, the reason the people Nadal is playing have not won french opens is because they are in the same era as Nadal and guess what? Nadal has always been in the way, if he was playing people who had french open titles then he wouldn't have won them. Too much disregarding achievements itt. Federer and Nadal are the best two players ever imo.

[Dominik]

Also this is complete bs and you know it. He admitted that just this past match with Nadal as being the FIRST AND ONLY time he's every felt that way in his career. Ferrer has made a living and a reputation off of being a grinder who never ever gave up. He's like 32 or 33 now, and he never had the skill of a top notch player... He was a hard worker and a grinder, which is tough to keep with age.

Ferrer has ALWAYS been known for his work ethic and hard play on the court. C'mon man, that's weak to go after a recent statement from a 32+ year old player and take it extremely out of context.

The comment about tanking relates to his recent admission but the comment about not believing he could beat the "Big 4" was made several times.

He's openly admitted he did not believe he could beat them. That says to me he is never going to be tough competition in a slam final against the best players. His work ethic against the rest of the tour, in earlier rounds or in smaller events is meaningless in this discussion. I'm talking slam finals.

Although Federer is good on fast courts he is still incredible on clay, the reason the people Nadal is playing have not won french opens is because they are in the same era as Nadal and guess what? Nadal has always been in the way, if he was playing people who had french open titles then he wouldn't have won them. Too much disregarding achievements itt. Federer and Nadal are the best two players ever imo.

He's won 9/10 because he's a great player in a weak era.

Federer won 7/8 Wimbledons against weak competition too. No way Roger wins 7 Wimbledons in the 90s against Sampras.

Hardcourt is a different story. 9 slams to 3. That's how I split the two. Both dominated on clay and grass respectively but Federer in his prime is the vastly superior hardcourt player. It's not even close.

Ditto for indoors against the Top 8 players in the world. 6 year-end titles to Nadal's ZERO. Nada.

Come at me Nadal bros. I'll be here all week.

[BDPfit]

The comment about tanking relates to his recent admission but the comment about not believing he could beat the "Big 4" was made several times.

He's openly admitted he did not believe he could beat them. That says to me he is never going to be tough competition in a slam final against the best players. His work ethic against the rest of the tour, in earlier rounds or in smaller events is meaningless in this discussion. I'm talking slam finals.

He's won 9/10 because he's a great player in a weak era.

Federer won 7/8 Wimbledons against weak competition too. No way Roger wins 7 Wimbledons in the 90s against Sampras.

Hardcourt is a different story. 9 slams to 3. That's how I split the two. Both dominated on clay and grass respectively but Federer in his prime is the vastly superior hardcourt player. It's not even close.

Ditto for indoors against the Top 8 players in the world. 6 year-end titles to Nadal's ZERO. Nada.

Come at me Nadal bros. I'll be here all week.

The way I look at it, I remove the top player from each era and put them in different eras and hypothetically see how they would have done.

How would Nadal have fared in Federer's time? Certainly he would have no less success on clay, no? Who was in the field that would have would have challenged him 10 years ago?

How would Federer have done on the hard courts? Well he would certainly have more competition in Novak and Murray. Can he beat them? Yes. Would he beat them on a regular basis in his prime? Probably. But his margin for error become a lot slimmer and the chances of him getting 9 hard court titles becomes a bit tougher.

Indoors isn't even a discussion, Federer clearly has an edge there. BUT what I think is an even bigger factor is that the Year End is a 3 SETTER. We all know Nadal is at his best in a 5 set match. The Year End works very well to Fed's strengths and against Nadal's weaknesses. That is very apparent.

[Willrey]

The comment about tanking relates to his recent admission but the comment about not believing he could beat the "Big 4" was made several times.

He's openly admitted he did not believe he could beat them. That says to me he is never going to be tough competition in a slam final against the best players. His work ethic against the rest of the tour, in earlier rounds or in smaller events is meaningless in this discussion. I'm talking slam finals.

He's won 9/10 because he's a great player in a weak era.

Federer won 7/8 Wimbledons against weak competition too. No way Roger wins 7 Wimbledons in the 90s against Sampras.

Hardcourt is a different story. 9 slams to 3. That's how I split the two. Both dominated on clay and grass respectively but Federer in his prime is the vastly superior hardcourt player. It's not even close.

Ditto for indoors against the Top 8 players in the world. 6 year-end titles to Nadal's ZERO. Nada.

Come at me Nadal bros. I'll be here all week.

fukking isn't a weak era beating Federer the GOAT in the final is not weak beating Djokovic in the final is not weak, arguably one of the best eras. No one else would have stopped Nadal in any era on clay. stop it with this weak era stuff mayne. Federer didn't play in a weak era either beating Nadal and Roddick and Murray in his matches is an incredible feat. The stat of Nadal beating people who hadn't won it is one of the most worthless stats I have seen because the reason they hadn't won it is because he was there, Novak, Feds etc. The fact that you are saying the era is weak because Federer got to the final 4 times is quite simply laughable when he is the GOAT. He is still an incredible clay court player!!!

They are both incredible Federer better overall and the GOAT Nadal undisputed King of clay.

I hate the fact that whilst people are arguing between two players that they have to disregard the achievements of the other. Feels bad mane