Nadal versus Federer; who is a better player?
Two world class players; one known as Rafael Nadal and the second Roger Federer have taken tennis to a whole new level.
All through the last decade, both of these tennis players have ruled men's tennis nearly solely. With massively distinct individualities as well as styles, they have each casted their positions in the records of tennis history and maintain to make their mark.
Their contestation is remarkable. Each has taken full advantage exceedingly, from the other around the net on a number of important events.
Federer took advantage from having a real contender authenticate his charm after Andy Roddick turned out to be a much smoother nut to break, while Nadal's advantage has come with his embodiment, in the run of brilliance and his turning even brilliant in the process.
There are grumblings and rustling from tennis fans as well as some major critics of the game. A question that is beginning to put on some actual weight, should Nadal not anymore be taken as the Agassi to Federer's Sampras, but a lot more than that? Should he begin to be looked more like the same and less of a colleague?
Some may study this surprised and amazed. How can you put them side by side when one has half the overall quantity of Grand Slams? How can you even think about them as equal?
While comparing them in terms of their class and greatness, there is a need to first consider the factors that assess the level of greatness, particularly when putting the real stars of the game side by side.
Of course, the Grand Slam numbers the greatest factor, but at times that portion of a player's bequest, can out shine other important achievements that are fairly as significant, yet go hardly detected or recalled.
For example, Nadal will presumably add a slide of extra World Tour Masters thousand championship trophies to his professional life of eighteen, all by age twenty four.
One of the greatest luminary characteristic of the Federer/Nadal competition is that it is the only particular contestation in the open era, in which the presumed better player with more Grand Slam titles has an important losing history in both overall games and more noticeably, the Grand Slam events themselves.
Whether it was McEnroe / Borg, Sampras /Agassi, Rosewall/Laver or any other pair their track records were either quite similar or totally opposite.
At the moment, this argument has Nadal ruling with a 14-7 triumphing record, and more significantly, a 6-2 (5-2 in finals) history in major finals. Generally, Nadal leads 10-3 on clay court and both the players are tied 3-3 as far as hard-courts are concerned where as Federer is ahead with 2-1 on grass courts.
While the general history is unquestionably telling, it is the Grand Slam finals where the actual debate bears water.
With three victories at Roland Garros, and one success each at the grass court Grand Slam event as well as the Australian Open tournament, Nadal has proved that he can knock down Federer on all kinds of tennis courts, on the other hand Federer has hammered down Nadal just on the grass courts of Wimbledon at the All England Club.
On top of everything, Rafa hold a 7-3 record against the tennis master Roger Federer in the final matches of the World Tour Masters championships (6-3 Masters 1000). Now those victories are mostly, if not all of them, on clay courts but they are victories nevertheless.
Keeping all these stats aside, the truth of the matter however is that Roger Federer is definitely a legendary tennis star as far as his comparison with the 2010 Wimbledon champion Rafael Nadal is concerned, there is certainly no one superior to one another in terms of class and flair of the game of tennis. Federer has the slam history, but Nadal is definitely a better player overall in terms of their match history as proof.
Tags: