They are chalk and cheese, yet one thing is beyond dispute, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are true champions of their sport.
Federer is very much the traditionalist, ice cool and an exponent of the old-fashioned one-handed backhand.
He seems to play an effortless game, generating power that belies his slender build.
Nadal is the raging bull, always fidgeting and on the move. He possesses the physique of a boxer and used to proudly display it with his penchant for sleeveless shirts.
He uses those attributes, and a large dose of top-spin, to batter opponents into submission.
Between them they have won 30 grand slam singles titles – Federer’s 17 is an all-time record – and amassed prize money nearing US$150m.
Unlike some top-flight sporting rivals, the pair share a strong mutual admiration for each other’s game and exploits with praise flowing easily for the other’s ability and sportsmanship.
In recent years the general consensus has been that Federer and Rod Laver – the only player in the sport to achieve the calendar year grand slam twice – are the two greatest male players of all-time.
Comparing players who plied their trade nearly four decades apart is wrought with problems and conjecture.
However, comparing contemporaries is a lot easier.
And with that in mind, who is actually the better player between Federer and Nadal, the current world number one?
Age wise, Nadal has the more time ahead of him to add to his 13 grand slam singles titles – if he wins on Sunday he will join Pete Sampras in joint second behind Federer.
Nadal turns 28 in June, while Federer will reach 33 in August.
If Nadal does lift the trophy at Melbourne Park he will join Laver and another Australian, Roy Emerson, as the only men to have won each of the four majors twice or more.
Federer is certainly still revered but perhaps no longer feared as he once was by his fellow top-ten opponents – he is currently ranked sixth in the world.
Following his second victory at Wimbledon in 2004 he reached the semi-finals or better at the next 22 majors as he ruled the world as undisputed king of the court.
During that period he held the number one ranking for 237 consecutive weeks, an-all time record, as is his career 302 weeks at the top of the table.
Nadal is currently in his 119th week as world number one.
Both men have a preferred surface, with Federer having won seven titles on the grass courts of Wimbledon and Nadal eight on the red clay of Roland Garros, an all-time record where his win-loss stands at a staggering 59-1.
Conversely, Federer has won just once in Paris – in 2009, when Nadal was eliminated in the fourth round – and been runner-up four times, at the hands of Nadal on each occasion.
Nadal has been crowned Wimbledon champion twice – in 2008 when he beat Federer and 2010 when he overcame Tomas Berdych. He has also been runner-up three times, with the first two losses coming against Federer.
In all, Federer has contested 24 grand slam finals for his 17 titles, while Nadal has won his 13 trophies from 18 finals appearances, giving the Swiss a winning percentage in the biggest matches on the tour of 71 and Nadal 72.
Federer has a career win-loss record of 260-41 from the 58 grand slams he has contested for a winning percentage of 86.4, while Nadal’s is 88.1 on the back of a win-loss of 171-23 from 37 appearances (up to the end of the US Open in 2013).
Federer has won the year-ending ATP Championship – which brings together the top eight players in the world – a record six times, while Nadal has appeared in two finals without success.
Nadal has won a record 26 ATP World Masters 1000 tournaments – the nine biggest tournaments outside the grand slams – with Federer’s 21 placing him in third overall, one behind Ivan Lendl.
Nadal (83.7) has the best winning percentage in the Open era for players who have notched up over 400 victories, while Federer is in sixth spot with 81.1%.
In all, Federer is equal third with John McEnroe in career titles in the Open era with 77, trailing Jimmy Connors (110) and Ivan Lendl (94). Nadal sits in eighth position with 61 singles titles.
Federer and Nadal have been rivals since they first met at the 2004 Miami Masters, where the Spaniard won in straight sets.
Between July 2005 and August 2009 they were the top-two in the rankings.
They are the only pair of men to have been ranked in the top two for six consecutive calendar years, a feat that underlines their longevity as rivals.
As a result of that record the pair has met 20 times in finals, including a record eight in grand slams.
In those eight grand slam deciders Nadal has come out on top six times – his two losses coming at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
Overall they have clashed 32 times on the ATP Tour, with Nadal holding a convincing 22-10 advantage, although it should be noted 15 of those encounters have been played on his favoured clay courts. 11 of those meetings have gone to a deciding set.
Federer has been incredibly resilient, with the current Australian Open his 57th consecutive grand slam tournament.
Nadal has missed four grand slams through injury – 2006 and 2013 Australian Open, 2009 Wimbledon and the 2012 US Open.
Federer’s success rate has fallen away in the past few years, with his win at Wimbledon in 2012 the only major he has won from his past 15 attempts leading into this year’s Australian Open.
He is five years older than Nadal.
In the last five calendar years Federer has won four singles grand slam titles.
Interestingly, if Nadal was to replicate that output he would have the same number of grand slam titles – 17 – at the same age Federer is now.
Whether Federer can conjure another win in a slam remains debatable. This year’s Wimbledon may represent his best chance.
Nadal, should he stay fit and healthy, seems destined to add to his tally.
Time alone will tell whether he can eclipse Federer’s record.
Regardless, he has already constructed a record that stands up extremely well against the man who so often is spoken about in tandem with the great Rod Laver.
Already his record shows he should be bracketed with Federer and Laver when it comes to discussing the merits of who is the best of all-time.
Rarofra
Guest
No doubt that Federer has more talent. But is this enough to state he's better? I think Federer is still ahead of Nadal because his career has more important onquests but I just don't like this argument of Federer is better because of talent. Nadal, on the other hand is a much more adaptable player, that evolved his game during last years to face Federer (and after Djokovic) in advantage on H2H even being considered less talentous, so I think we can consider Nadal also a genius of hard work and on his own way with very talent. But I agree that Federer is still ahead and I'm not sure Nadal is able to overcome his conquests in next years.
steve
Guest
This is a VERY interesting site. Really comprhensive thorough eval of both athletes and their claims to "best ever". I'm a Rogerer fan because of his grace and class, but Rafa is a relentless shark and supreme competitor. And classy himself. My all-time favorite tennis player (and top 5 favorite athlete) is Bjorn.
Bob
Guest
The head to head stat is so stupid. If you examine more closely, you will see that every federer made the finals in every single tournament for like 5 years straight, and he lost to Nadal on every clay one. Nadal, on the other hand, only made the finals on clay and like 10 other times, and he beat federer in most of those meetings. Nadal is the best clay court player ever, hands down. But Federer is so much better, it isn't even a fair comparison. On an unrelated note, Federer plays with much more grace and is more enjoyable to watch. Nadal plays with anger and ferocity. As good as he is, he's in the wrong sport.
Kaitain
Guest
Federer ought to have built up a head to head lead against Nadal when Fed was near his peak and Nadal was just a nipper. Instead, a teenaged Nadal ran out to a 6-1 H2H lead against Federer and has ALWAYS been ahead of him. Nadal laid down a marker very early against the guy supposedly the best in the world, and has bossed him throughout his career. As Nadal's all-round game improved, Federer simply could not cope with it, leading to his tearful breakdown at the 2009 Australian Open. Deep in his heart, Roger knows that Rafa was a player he did not have the tools to beat. He also knows that seven of his slams came in a very weak period for men's tennis where he had no real competition on the tour. As soon as that competition arrived, Federer became the second-best player on the tour.
Kaitain
Guest
But he has never beaten Nadal in a best of five match on clay. Not once.
Kaitain
Guest
I'd take Nadal. Federer is too weak on clay. If he came up against Nadal on clay...not a hope. By contrast, if Nadal came up against Federer on grass, he'd have every chance. That's the big difference between the two men: Federer has never given Nadal a run for his money at Roland Garros, whereas Nadal not only went toe to toe with Federer on his home turf, but beat him in one of the greatest matches of all time. That match decides the issue for me: it's the one where Nadal proved himself the better player than Federer.
Blaine MacMillan
Guest
If gamesmanship is another criterion, then Nadal must be the greatest. Faking injury whenever behind in a big match, spilling water on yourself warranting a change of clothes, being coached during a match, etc....
syed Mansoor ali Rizvi
Guest
Federer will always be the best ever since the game of tennis starts nobody came who can match Federer's talent.
Tom Dibble
Roar Rookie
I think that Nadal's 23-10 lead over Federer head-to-head is the only way to compare the two players. Collingwood was the best team in the AFL by a long way in 2011. They lost to Geelong three times in the year -- their only losses. But even though Collingwood won more matches than Geelong, Geelong beat them in the Grand Final, which means that history will remember them as the best team that year. I f Nadal has beaten Federer more than Federer has beaten Nadal then does than not make Nadal the better player?
Allan Younker
Guest
Lets try it this way...how can you be better than someone that beats the crap out of you the majority of the time....Have a nice day! :-)
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
My point was that people were calling Federer the best ever after he'd won 6, 7, 8 Slams! His legacy wasn't close to Sampras', yet people were already calling him the best. It was mainly because he played beautiful tennis. Even now I don't think a match between Sampas (in his prime, not at the end of his career) and Federer would be too one-sided. Pete was underrated, always underrated and unappreciated, and I think he could beat Federer. But there's no dispute who has had the better career and the greater legacy!
James
Guest
problem with your argument steels is that you are saying that federer was in his prime when nadal was just starting which means that unless you are saying that federers prime lasted 8 years or so then for most of the time federer has been past his prime when nadal was in his prime.
James
Guest
i think one reason people take nadals awesome clay wins with a bit of an asterix when comparing clay and grass is that the clay court season goes on for a quite a while where as the grass season is a warm up tournament then wimbledon. if the grass court season was as long as the clay court season federer would have much nicer numbers in the head to head v nadal. people didnt just say that federer was better than sampras on a whim, federer was always someone to watch even when he was younger, he was just, amazingly when you compare him to how most of us know him, mentally weak and prone to petulant displays of anger whilst playing. he got that under control and started winning and showing off a perfect game with no real weaknesses (unless you happened to create a left handed, heavy top spin forehand hitting, run all day, not coming to the net so can never passing shot him player). people said federer was better than sampras because he was for want of a more nuanced explanation. they didnt say he would always beat the other guy on the other side of the net, they just said he was better and if federer played his best it didnt matter who was on the other side they would lose. and for 6 years or so, except on clay, they were right and were only off by one when it came to clay. i dont really see your argument, they, being tennis ex players and commentators and current players, said federer was better because of what he had done and what he was doing and they were right. nadal is awesome, truly awesome, almost definetely the greatest clay court player ever with only borg with a counter claim only because of difference in racquets between their eras. i just think 8 times out of 10 going into a random tournament federer wins that tournament whilst nadals number would probably be 7.
James
Guest
federers return against great servers is a huge strength in his game. he has never really been troubled by guys with huge serves, his block returns are just so good. its not something he needs much now with so few but id back federer to beat sampras on grass because of that.
James
Guest
i think what eddard is saying is that he is looking at a year as 365 days where as you are looking at a year as 1 january to 31 december. total weeks are more important than specific dates of when those weeks happened maybe.
James
Guest
thats the catch 22 with rafa though, in order to not get injured so much he would have to not play as well as he does, his game demands so much from his body. rafa is brilliant, he is in that very top tier without a doubt, he just demands so much of his body
James
Guest
only probably more prone to injury if you play like nadal? i think the biggest wonder about nadal is that he hasnt been injured more than he has been. hope in 10 years time he can still walk around.
James
Guest
i still rate laver, you have to, but there has to be a huge asterix next to his calendar grand slams with 3 of them being on grass. in the opposite way the head to head with federer and nadal if they had been played more on grass. or if nadal had beaten more people more often to get to play federer or if federer had lost more often so didnt end up playing nadal so often on clay all have to be thought of with head to head. head to head, you are the best because you beat the previous best works great in boxing. but thats about the only sport it works in.
James
Guest
yeah thats for me a shame, this equalising of all 3 main courts. wasnt that long ago that wimbledon was super super fast, if you had the shots you would beat players who were really good defensive players every single time. nowadays everything is slower, which does mean people get to see longer rallies and we do get more excited by winners. it was needed to stop the huge servers just walking thru their service games but it has come at the cost of true differences between the main courts.
Darren Walton
Guest
We could throw up endless statistics but, in my humble opinion, Federer is CLEARLY the GOAT because (putting it relatively briefly): - Offering up Nadal's 22-10 winning record over Federer is unfair because: a) Let's see how a 32-and-a-half-year-old Nadal goes against 26 and 27 yos at the peak of their powers and; b) Let's see how the head-to-head would end up if as many matches between the two were played on each surface, not half the total on clay where Nadal is virtually invincible against anyone; c) Nadal has won their past four encounters - and five of their past seven - since Federer turned 30. Excelling in his twilight shouldn't count against Federer just because a contender, at his peak, for the GOAT status is beating him and blowing out the head-to-heads. - Nadal is a claycourt colossus and, while such dominance should not be ignored, eight of his 13 slams have come on dirt. He's only won five elsewhere on other surfaces. - Yes, Federer has only won one on clay, but 16 elsewhere and, as quite rightly pointed out, he could be considered the second-best player ever on clay. Third at worst, behind Borg. - Overall, their grand slam title records for the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open are: Federer: 4-1-7-5 = 17 (finals: 5-5-8-6 = 24) Nadal: 1-8-2-2 = 13 (1-8-5-3 = 17) Season-ending championships (featuring world's top eight players) Federer: 6 wins from 8 finals Nadal: 0 wins from 2 finals (lost to Federer, 2010) Two significant disparities right there. In summary, in addition to the 17 he's won, Federer has lost three grand slam finals in five sets and four to Nadal at Roland Garros, plus another semi-final to Nadal in Paris, meaning he could have conceivably won (BUT GRANTED DIDN'T) 25 grand slam singles titles - and at least four on all four surfaces - if not for Nadal. It's also worth noting that Federer has faced a dozen (and beaten 11) different players in grand slam finals over three generations of greats being on the scene (in chronological order - Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Soderling), while Nadal has only played through two generations and beaten less than half as many players in GS finals. As for consistency in making consecutive grand slam finals, semi-finals and quarter-finals, Nadal is not in Federer's ball park. Federer is the undisputed GOAT in my eyes, until Nadal at least matches his grand slam tally to enter the debate.