If Roger Federer were not around, would Nadal be considered the best ever? Or at least on the verge of it? It seems as though Nadal and Federer have been meeting each other often in the finals of tournaments. As Federer displayed today, he still owns the grass, and Nadal owns the clay, but what about other surfaces? How many times, exactly, has Nadal lost to Federer in the finals of grand slam events? How many grand slam titles would Nadal have if he didn't have to play Federer?
Federer and Nadal have combined to win the previous 8 grand slam championships and 11 out of the last 15. I was surprised to find out that Nadal is 3-2 against Federer in head-to-head matches in grand slam events. The three wins have been at the French Open and the two losses have been at Wimbledon. Four of the matches occurred in the finals, one in the semis. Even if we assume Nadal wins the two Wimbledons, that puts him at 5, still a long way from the 11 that Federer has.
Considering Nadal has not won a grand slam event other than the French Open, even if we give him a couple Wimbledons. Winning all four of the grand slam tournaments seems to be a prerequisite for being part of the greatest ever debate. That's the knock on Federer and that would be a knock on Nadal as well. Nadal would be good, but not nearly as dominant as Federer has been over the past five years. He'd easily be number one (Federer and Nadal have been 1 and 2 for more than 100 weeks) but there wouldn't be a debate quite yet.
That said, Nadal is only 21 - Federer is 26. Unless Federer can get lucky, Nadal should continue his dominance on clay and continue to get better on grass. It was evident today that Nadal is playing much better on grass and is gaining on Federer. Nadal has been able to combine his athleticism with a more strategic game. As Federer slows down and Nadal picks up, it isn't unreasonable to think of Federer catching Sampras at 14 grand slam titles and Nadal closing in on Federer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment