re: Rafa legacy

Prime Nadal on clay is easily the greatest any tennis player has ever been on any surface, but it will take a lot to ever talk me out of Federer being the greatest player overall. Federer owns the H2H matchup on 3/4 surfaces (outdoor hard court, indoor hard court and grass) and at his peak was clearly a better player on all 3 surfaces when compared to peak Nadal.

The best argument for Nadal, IMO, is that his career saw a more sustained time at his peak. Federer from 2010 onward has clearly been several notches below 2004 - 2009 Federer. Nadal has been dominant on clay for 15 years and his peak lasted nearly a decade.

quote:

---

And how many if Rafa were 3 years older?

---

Umm, none, because he has none to begin with

I was talking entire Grand Slams, not individual tourney wins

quote:

---

and at his peak was clearly a better player on all 3 surfaces when compared to peak Nadal.

---

On what basis?

quote:

---

Can someone give me a quick version of why the surface matters so much, or, I suppose, how one player would be so dominant on one type of surface?

I'll hang up and listen

---

It's a complicated answer. Part of it is how athletic Rafa is (and STILL is, even at age 34). Part of it is how his lethal topspin forehand bounces higher on clay than on any other surface. Part of it is his willingness to grind, but his ability to not have to always grind.

quote:

---

This is a crappy argument because it gives Rafa twice the credit, both for winning on a surface and his opponent not winning...because Rafa won it. lol

---

I don't think that makes it a crappy argument at all.

The fact that Rafa has absolutely owned a surface cannot be held against him. It's a pro, not a con.

I actually think it's really hard to make an argument for Fed with a straight face.