Novak Djokovic sent his second serve off the line for a double fault, and match point to Rafael Nadal. The King of Clay fell to his knees, holding his head, barely able to believe that he had just won such a brutal encounter.
The Serbian who has been a constant thorn in Nadal’s garden of fame has finally been tamed, and on the stage where it really mattered to both.
As Nadal increased his record haul of French Open titles to nine and equalled Pete Sampras’s 14 major titles, it brought back the memories of scenes from five years ago.
On that occasion it was Roger Federer who fell to his knees weeping, as his only Roland Garros title also saw him draw level with Sampras’ imposing Grand Slam record.
And on both occasions, the title victories opened debate on who is the greatest tennis player of all time.
As we take on the debate, let’s first break down the number of major title wins of the two contenders.
Nadal has one twice at Wimbledown and the US Open, once in Australia, and nine times at the French Open, while Federer’s record reads seven Wimbledon titles, five US Opens, four Australian Opens and one French Open.
Clay has clearly been the foundation of Nadal’s Grand Slam tally. He has used it to pile up his chase of Federer’s record, totally neglecting the other surfaces.
Federer, on the other hand, has a decent balance of Slams, with Wimbledon leading the pack. He’s equal with Sampras as the leader on grass, while he’s taken nine combined on the hard courts of Melbourne and New York City.
There’s a lack of success on the red dirt, but, being the only man in the Nadal era to have at least won at Roland Garros is still an achievement. If only Nadal wasn’t part of the equation, his carerr Grand Slam tally may never be caught by anyone.
Another debate centres around the fact that Nadal also has an Olympic gold medal and David Cup success on top of his 14 Grand Slams. But with the Swiss team in the Davis Cup semi-finals this year, it looks like Federer will finally get to fulfill another missing trophy ambition.
Nadal was always blessed to have great Spanish players ranked in the top 20 in the world to join him at the Davis Cup, whereas Federer was always the one and only Swiss hope until the recent rise of Stanislas Wawrinka.
As for the Olympics, Federer also has medals for the doubles in 2008 and as singles runner-up in 2012. A gold in the doubles underlines Federer’s versatility, as well as his ability to work well as a team player.
Nadal has a winning record against all the players in the game, and many will look at his winning record against Federer to justify his claims as the greatest. But that’s merely because his rough, brutal style of play and leg-breaking runs to retrieve balls is the opposite of Federer’s elegant approach. He knows Federer’s backhand weakness against his top-spin play too well, and exploits it well each time.
Still, no one has the consistency of Federer in his prime: 10 straight Grand Slam finals from 2005 to 2008, a record stint of 302 weeks at No. 1, and he never misses a Grand Slam tournament.
As Nadal moves on to Wimbledon on a Cloud Nine high, you have to wonder how quickly the mood will change if he’s again knocked out in the opening round there.
Paul Mansell
Guest
I don't disagree with the view that Federer is the greatest of all time but take issue with some of the points made in the article. Federer is the greatest of all time at the moment because he has won 17 slams to Nadal's 14. Federer also has more weeks at number 1 and far more slams off clay than Rafa but that is because of his style which has led to grass and hardcourt success. Rafa has won 5 slams off clay but may win another couple. Rafa has won multiple slams on the three surfaces so a case can be made that he is the greater all court champion. That case is strengthened when one looks at h2h between the two men particularly at grand slams but elsewhere also. Rafa leads 23 to 10 with a 9-2 record at the slams against Roger. Plus Rafa has won at slams on all 3 surfaces whereas Roger has only won at Wimbledon & not since 2007. The argument in the article that Roger has lost to Rafa primarily cause of style is only partly correct. Roger may be the most elegant player of all time but the biggest argument against him being the greatest is his relatively poor h2h against Rafa. As to why this is so is simply that the so called greatest should be able to beat the best there is more often than they beat him irrespective of style. The closer Rafa gets to Roger's slam tally the harder it is to maintain the argument that Roger is the best. If Rafa gets to 17 slams or surpasses Roger then he should be considered the greatest player of all time whatever the breakdown of the slam tally is.
Luka
Guest
Federara isnt a bully he is a teacher.
Luka
Guest
I know that Nadal may have more wins and stuff but honestly look at how elagant Federar is. He is like a ballerina in tennis and Nadal the big dribbling mad dog. Im not being harsh on Nadal he is a great player but i think Federar takes it for this generation. The greatest player i reckon is Rod Laver. He is just amazing. No one dared to touch him even with challengers so this is my order- 1)Rod Laver a.k.a The rocket 2) Federar 3) Nadal/Djokovic 4) Murry/Wawrinka or howerver you spell it. Don't Get me wrong all of these players are amazing to even get to number 250 in the world take hours, day, months, years and decades of training so if you are up there you should be proud wether you have 17 grandslams or none.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Federer isn't a top three clay court player, but God you talk some sh`t. How was Sampras a better grass court player than Federer? Some facts please. Not this weak era nonsense.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Sampras is the best grass court player. And when it's all said and done Djokovic will be the best HC player of all time. Federer was a weak era bully.
awais buttt
Guest
And what about grass and hard courts? Grass courts: 1: federer 2: sampras 3: Borg 4: McEnroe 5: Becker 6: edberg Hard courts: 1: federer 2: sampras 3: lendle 4: djokovic 5: connors Where is nadal on grass and hard courts in all time greatest lists? And people start claiming nadal GOAT ... hahaha Nadal is a clay court specialist only Federer by far a better all round player and is the GOAT
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Federer top 3 clay courter of all time? Don't be silly. Nadal Borg Wilander Vilas Lendl Muster Connors All vastly superior to Federer
JayWoo
Guest
Nicely worded post Riccardo. People tend to forget what a brilliant exponent Fed is/was of the clay court game as well. IMO top three claycourter or all time. Combine that with his other stats and he has it all over Rafa. Time will tell if he can surpass Feds achievements and it actually wouldn't surprise me if he did given he is the most mentally tough and determined player to have ever played the game. I just hope Fed bows out gracefully on his own terms rather than sticking around for a season too many and getting flogged by lesser opponents
matt
Guest
Few would argue that Federer as a brand is orders of magnitude bigger than Nadal will ever be. And why not, Federer is class, gentleman, so clean and ever so likable, not to mention has a far more elegant style of game The world loves him, I love him, and heck, I can't stand Rafa - what with all that ass-crack-picking, taking an age between every point, playing monotonous high top-spin, being associated with doctors caught out for for supplying PEDS, having the most annoying uncle in tennis etc etc Yet on pure tennis greatness - Rafa wins over Federer, hands down, clear as day.
Riccardo
Guest
So you're a tennis player as well as a rugby player OJ. I wonder if we ever crossed paths in junior or club tournaments over here. As far as Nadal v Federer is concerned I think you are right on the money. Federer came along when men's tennis was becoming stale. Sampras and Agassi were waning. Marat Safin looked like the next great thing but was an emotional wreck. Philippoussis was in the top ten for goodness' sake. Here was a gregarious young man, already promising great things from his junior career where he and Nalbandian developed their rivalry. Roger smiled, gave frank interviews, had time for the fans but most importantly he loved tennis and you could see it. He played a complete game wihich was pretty to watch, a single-handed back-hand that could slice like Rosewall or drive like Edberg. He played doubles so he could volley, although he doesn't and never really did employ that part of his game as much as he should. And, boy was he good. He towered over his opponents and I think still has the record for consecutive weeks at #1. The most grand slams. An incredible record and throughout has remained one of the greatets ambassadors the game has ever seen. He married his childhood sweetheart; the guy's a saint. Then Nadal, amongst others, joined the fray. Spanish. Flamboyant. The usurper. Flaying the ball with his frying-pan grip. A base-line top-spinner. To the uneducated a limited arsenal and a limited player. I've never seen either of them live but a mate tells me that when Nadal really hits a fore-hand you can actually hear the revolutions on the ball as it fizzes past you. But his mental fortitude is equalled only by the same decency and humility displayed by Roger. Another consummate gentleman wearing his latin emotions on his sleeve. Rafa is the stronger, make no mistake. He is fitter and more determined, will run down and play that extra shot and has enough talent to drive and pass off both flanks. He is a cross between Borg and Wilander with Lendl's steadfastness. He makes you hit your backhand above your head which is a killer in tennis and he does that all day. But the reality is that the casual club player is always going to prefer Federer who's complete game is not just visually asthaetic, it's closer to the tennis they play, something they can relate to. I recognise Rafa's dominance but will always acquiesce to the romance that is the Fed.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
If you want to know the difference between Nadal and Federer it's this: When Nadal loses to Dustin Brown nobody cares. When Federer loses to anyone there's an Amazon rainforest worth of print. The general public does not see Nadal as greater than Federer.
clipper
Guest
It's a hard argument - like Bradman / Tendulkar - of course Tennis a much more global now, but the participation rates in Australia and America are much lower because these countries don't dominate anymore.
Johnno
Guest
Laver's stats are pointless like Margaret Court's. They played in an easier era, a less compeittive era, an era when tennis was less global and much MUCH lower participation rates.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Since 2010 Nadal's reached the final of 12 of 18 slams. 8 victories and 4 runners up. That's a rather healthy 66%.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Rod Laver's calendar grand slams are a lesser record. Firstly 3 of the 4 slams where played on grass. Only Paris was on clay difference surface(clay). If someone did the Callander grand slam in the open era it's far more worthwhile.
RBBAnonymous
Guest
"Take the H2H away and I can’t see how the case can be made for Nadal" How about keep the H2H and I cant see how the case can be made for Federer
Brian
Guest
Yes but Rosol and Darcis have. Is it really Federer or Djokovic job to help Nadal avoid injuries and upsets so like them he can more consistently make it to the second week?
peter
Guest
check Rod Laver's wiki page. 7 years no.1 2 calendar year slams. 19 major titles 8 doubles majors titles. Positive H2H against all his chief rivals Federer is nowhere near that...
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Pretty decent 'clay court specialist' that's reached 5 Wimbledon finals. 3 US open finals and 3 Australian open finals..... Winning 2/2/1 respectively.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Djokovic had a 7 month period where he was able to match Nadal in the majors, Wimbledon 2011, US Open 2011 and Australian Open 2012. Post and prior to that 7 month window, Djokovic hasn't beaten Nadal in a major.