Stuart,

I do not deny your points. They are all valid.­ I think this is endless argument. Only time will tell­ though I still think Nadal is better than Fed.­ Let's wait for one more epic Wimbledon final this­ year.

BTW Deepak, can you come up with your logic if­ you have any. Don't give one line ans just like­ typical dumb moron.

ritesh's comment has more "ifs" than­ logic...if "ifs" were to make Nadal greater­ than Federer...

Hi djord. I agree that for Nadal to have beaten Federer­ on hard court and grass is a great achievement, but you­ can't compare it to the past and Sampras. Ten years­ ago Nadal couldn't have won Wimbledon as the courts­ were much faster then(faster than the us open and Nadal­ has never won there)they also use heavier balls now.­ This has been done to produce longer rallies. All the­ old players agree that they have slowed Wimbledon­ surface down. You only have to look at where the grass­ is bare these days at the end of the tournament to see­ the difference from years ago. I do not take away from­ Nadals wonderful achievement last year in winning­ Wimbledon, but please don't compare the Wimbledon­ of today with ten years ago. Anyone who watched then­ can see how it has changed. Once they started slowing­ the courts down Sampras never won again by the way.­ Wimbledon used to be serve and volley it rarely is now.­ When I say if Nadal ends up with more slams than­ Federer he is better than Federer none of you Nadal­ supporters agree. Don't you think NadaL is good­ enough to win more??

Federer won 14 slams but for most of the time the best­ rival was A Rodick, what a joke

Federer best ever!

NUFF SAID!

Federer best ever!

NUFF SAID!

ritesh,if Roger this and Rafa that,grow up for god sake­ !

goodluck rafa tcr

Hi Ritesh. Please believe I am not here to rubbish­ Nadals achievements they are excellant. I agree that­ Nadal did beat Federer in 2005 at roland Garos (clay) I­ also accept that on clay he would have beaten Federer­ most times during any period. But please accept that he­ never beat Federer at any other slam until 2008. It­ isn't Federers fault if Nadal couldn't reach­ other finals. And to be fair the us open is now the­ fastest surface for a grand slam, that is why Nadal has­ never won there. Not because he is tired. Nadal is now­ the rightful no 1 but Federer is not the player he once­ was. What will you say if people beat Fed when he is­ thirty? they're better than him. I repeat opinions­ are one thing, but facts speak far louder. We should­ all just be grateful for the privelege of watching such­ a great rivalry that produces great matches. If Nadal­ gets more slams than fed in his life I will say he is­ better, until then let the facts stand

Omg people!Nadal is better than Federer in head vs­ head.But he isn't better over all.And Federer has­ better score vs Nadal on the grass and concrete,but­ Nadal has better score against Federer on clay!

Stuart,

You also seem to forget one thing. Rafa­ started beating federer when fed was in his prime and­ at an age of 24 (His first defeat in 2005 RG SF at the­ hands of Rafa)and still counting. So do not make such­ excuses that Roger is now old or 28. Even I've­ repsect for both the players but Nadal had put a­ tremendous effort in all his finals to beat World No 2.­ Just because Federer is holding a tally of 14­ doesn't mean that he is the BEST. We all know that­ if Nadal wouldn't be in the picture Fed's tally­ would have gone to nearly 20 and if Nadal wud have­ started his career early (when federer started) his­ tally wud be around 10.

He is coming back much too early. It is not the money -­ it is his desire to play, which is typical, but I think­ he will be forced out early.

Ritesh you seem to forget an important fact. Federer­ was playing his best tennis in 2006. Although he won 3­ slams in 2007 he had still dipped a bit from his­ height. He is now nearly 28. Most men are past their­ best in tennis by then. I have the greatest respect for­ Nadal but he is younger and still improving as is­ Murray. Please remember this. We all have opinions but­ federer has 14 slams. That is fact and fact is more­ important than opinion

Guys,

lets look at the Rafa-Roger records in the­ Grandslam finals. Out of 6 that Rafa won,
5 came after­ beating Federer in the final. (3 from RG, 1 Wimb, 1­ Aust Open)
and he also beat Fed in RG 2006 SF. This­ shud shut the mouth of all those who chanting
for Fed­ saying he is the "BEST". Even Fed himself­ admitted in an interview after RG 2009 final that­ "I knew when Rafa won't be there for RG final,­ it's me".

east or west federer is the best.with this wimbledon he­ will become king of grandslams.come on roger make mouth­ shut of nadal and murray fans.

In reference to federer winning more titles remember­ hes been on the circuit longer and he is much older.­ Nadal is younger and been on circuit for a short time­ but for the period he has been there he has won more.

I would love a nadal/Murray final, chances are with the­ build up for Murray he`ll be out in the first 2 rounds­ knowing his luck. Federer is a good player but he needs­ a coach back, he is tempremental and inconsistant. i­ bet if he met Nadal in the french final he wouldn`t of­ won. If Nadals knees are sorted then its his title­ again!! By the way txtblair a grandslam is all major­ titles in a season, Nadal hasnt won a grandslam as of­ yet, he has won a slams. I hate people that never get­ it right just like the commentators on tv!!

Hey Ameze! 14-6=8 (be realistic and don't be too­ sentimental or biased) a very long way to go for Nadal­ (though I fan both)...Actually, txtblair analyzed it­ well i mean no comparison @ll bween the two..........a­ long way to go Nadal....i wish u luck.

we tennis lovers want nADAL THERE BADLY. IWISH HIM ALL­ THE BEST .NADAL MEANS ACTION, LIVE ,SKILL AND PURE­ ENJOYMENT IN TENNIS. GOD BLESS NADAL