I agree with the winning more grand slams but you have to keep it in perspective here.

Don't get me wrong I love Fed, he is a classy and humble champion and I do feel he is in the running for greatest of all time but you have to keep in mind competition.

Not trying to bash on other players but the bulk of Fed's early competition was Roddick who he absolutely dominated. Then came people like Lubicic and Davydenko for a period, both skilled players but never skilled enough to break through and win majors. Safin was hit or miss tennis, as was Ferrer and Juan Carlos Ferero. Federer never had (until Nadal arrived) a real "kyrponite" if you will like the other greats have all had to face.

I think Fed's record against Roddick is like 25-1 or something insane lol.

Ehh.. Does a big difference between the number 1 and 2 say the rest is bad? 2 players don't have to be close to have a strong player field. That one player is by far the best simply tells how good he is. Nadal ends this year with about 12000 Atp ranking points, the number 2, Djokovic, has 7000. Does this tell us the competition is weak? Do I like to ask rhetorical questions? Yes, or do I?

But in the current time we have the same 3-4 guys in the finals / semi finals and they are always competitive with each other (Except for i think it was 08 French when Rafa spanked Fed).

Federer would blow through majors like it was nothing. Even Roddick at his prime (Wimbledon 04) up a set and a break with a rain delay when he had a coach, Federer had nothing but his gf, Fed managed to dominate.

It seemed like nothing could beat Federer but himself. With the exception of Roddick in back to back Wimbledons Federer rarely faced the same competition in the finals. The rest of the field would all beat up on each other. As I said, now we see the same 3-4 players (with a few obvious break throughs) in the finals and semis of the majors. Showing (to me at least) that there are more competitve players now than what Fed likely faced in his prime.

Again though, Fed to me is likely still the greatest of all time, just saying that with tennis that will always be an impossible argument to make.

To me a title is a title, with hundreds of professional players I doubt there is any big difference in the level of competition. Or shall we not count Nadal's UsOpen 2010 title because it was too easy? ^^

This post was edited by SeaBas on Sep 15 2010 09:18am

Federer vs. Nadal at the Very Same Age

Nadal on 9/13/10------- Federer on 11/18/05
Overall Record 460-98 -------- 390-119
Winning Pct. .824--------- .766
Titles 42 ---------33
Major Titles 9 ----------6
Majors Played 26 ----------27
Davis Cup Titles 3----------- 0
Olympic Gold Medals 1 ----------0
Longest Win Streak 32 -------------34
Rank 1 --------------1
Weeks at No. 1 60------------ 93
Record vs. No. 1 14-6 ------------2-3

This post was edited by Cipher on Sep 15 2010 02:35pm

Was that at the same age or after the same amount of time as pro tennis players?

that

To be honest I expect Nadal to maintain #1 for a long time now.
I don't think Federer has what it takes to get back as the number 1, although he will probably snatch a few titles.

I hate to say that but Nadal is the Matador, and his feets are so light he could catch any ball he wants no matter how many times you make him run and of course that is what a tennis player is all about, federer has the serve and hits,

the thing with nadal is he will retire before the age of 30's because of the way he play he is very very tough on his body and takes things to heavily he should be carefu though