Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="FfldCntyFan, post: 5011144, member: 71"] Nadal eclipsed Federer a couple years prior to Nadal reaching his (for men's tennis) prime while Federer was in his prime, on the surface (grass) where Federer should have had the greatest advantage. Unfortunately for Nadal (and yes, this is always a part of the equation when ranking someone historically) an injury took out some of his mid 20's seasons which would have given him a few additional majors while taking a couple from Federer and Djokovic. Additionally, his style of play (also part of the equation) led him to break down earlier than the other two. I hate discussions like this as they normally lead to someone belittling an elite athlete in an attempt to prove the one they prefer was better. These three men were very likely the three greatest ever (order them as you will) and if they didn't have the other two in the way for many years, the dominance from any one of them would have been monumental. If you were to place any one of the three, beginning his career in for example 1985, we would have seen a half dozen grand slams and overall numbers that would be difficult to imagine. Other than Sampras once he hit his stride at Wimbledon, nobody would have been consistently competitive against any of the three. [/QUOTE]