how can.................

[Knots & crosses]

You claimed that fed hadn't beaten rafa. He has.

Rafa thrashes everyone on clay, so that eliminates those finals.

I'm interested to know how the bloke with the most majors in an era isn't the best in that era either.

please feel free to explain that.

Frankly, I think novak might pass them both, since nadals knees won't hold.

[Randall]

You claimed that fed hadn't beaten rafa. He has.

Rafa thrashes everyone on clay, so that eliminates those finals.

I'm interested to know how the bloke with the most majors in an era isn't the best in that era either.

please feel free to explain that.

Frankly, I think novak might pass them both, since nadals knees won't hold.

he hasnt beaten him in a slam final since 08, lost 6 finals on the spin, granted 4 were on clay but those are the stats.

the overall head to head is 17-8 to nadal, which says nadal is better than him and so he cannot be the best player ever.

[Knots & crosses]

You do know there are players out there who have career records 1-0 in their favour over both those players?

Going by your logic, they can claim to be the greatest?

[Randall]

You do know there are players out there who have career records 1-0 in their favour over both those players?

Going by your logic, they can claim to be the greatest?

1-0 is hardly the same as 17-8 or 6-2 in slam finals.

cross generational comparisons (nadal v borg) as to who was the better player is a judgement call, in the case of nadal/federer we can see for ourselves at this time.

[Knots & crosses]

You do know there are players out there who have career records 1-0 in their favour over both those players?

Going by your logic, they can claim to be the greatest?

1-0 is hardly the same as 17-8 or 6-2 in slam finals.

cross generational comparisons (nadal v borg) as to who was the better player is a judgement call, in the case of nadal/federer we can see for ourselves at this time.

Aye, we can, fed has more total majors, and a larger spread of titles.

[Randall]

You do know there are players out there who have career records 1-0 in their favour over both those players?

Going by your logic, they can claim to be the greatest?

1-0 is hardly the same as 17-8 or 6-2 in slam finals.

cross generational comparisons (nadal v borg) as to who was the better player is a judgement call, in the case of nadal/federer we can see for ourselves at this time.

Aye, we can, fed has more total majors, and a larger spread of titles.

but has beaten nadal only 8 times in 25.

i wonder if any other greats had such massive losing head to head records against anybody else in their era.

[Randall]

borg v mcenroe tied 7-7
sampras v agassi 20-14
laver v rosewall 79-63

none that i have found as yet.

[Knots & crosses]

borg v mcenroe tied 7-7
sampras v agassi 20-14
laver v rosewall 79-63

none that i have found as yet.

It's 9 matches, barely much more than the Agassi one and they are still playing.

Hardly constitutes rfed being in his pocket, especially if you discount clay, where rafa batters everyone.

[hang the dj]

Don't think either of them would've beat Sampras on the grass in his prime. I hope Nadal overtakes Federer with Grand Slam titles as I can't stand Federer

[gazman]

Don't think either of them would've beat Sampras on the grass in his prime.

Yup, agree with that. Not the worlds most charismatic or technically gifted player, but his game on grass was flawless at times. Serve and volley wasn't everyones cup of tea, but he was unplayable at times.

[Randall]

borg v mcenroe tied 7-7
sampras v agassi 20-14
laver v rosewall 79-63

none that i have found as yet.

It's 9 matches, barely much more than the Agassi one and they are still playing.

Hardly constitutes rfed being in his pocket, especially if you discount clay, where rafa batters everyone.

he needs to beat him on the grass at wimbledon to get his head back in the right place. god knows he should.