Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="tzznandrew, post: 2548855, member: 168"] He was in the Finals 5x and lost tough matches to him in the Finals 4x, and in the semis once. It's almost certain that in Federer's prime (2005-2009) he would have won the four slams in a calendar year at least once (he won all but French twice), and if he won even one of those, his peak streak could have been 7 grand slams in a row. You don't get to redo history, but Jesus was that guy good. He's a fantastic clay court player, too: 5 finals and 7 semi-finals in addition to his win. Nadal is just the greatest clay court player in history. And a Top 10 non-clay court player. But, as I've said before, if you take away Federer's best surface (grass), he still has 12 Grand Slams, second most ever (and tied with Djokovic). If you take away Nadal's best surface (clay) he has 6. He's essentially Andre Agassi. Very good, historically important. But not in the same conversation. Injuries played a roll in that, sure, as did playing against Djokovic and Federer. But every generation has great competitors, and this one just seems to have three transcendent ones. [/QUOTE]