Is Rafa Nadal really better than Roger Federer?

“He’s the most gifted player that I’ve ever seen in my life. I’ve seen a lot of people play. I’ve seen the Lavers, I played against some of the great players – the Samprases, Beckers, Connors, Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That, to me, says it all. He’s probably the greatest player that ever lived. He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!”

That was the encomium showered on Roger Federer by John McEnroe ages ago. He was absolutely convinced by then that the Swiss maestro was the greatest player ever to have played the game of tennis. The American, though, had a surprise in store for all of us last Monday, when he claimed that Rafael Nadal was better than Roger Federer and added that the former was the greatest player ever. While still crediting Federer’s game as the most beautiful in the world of tennis, he, however, decided to confer the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) status on Rafael Nadal.

In support of his fresh claim, he made some obvious references to a few records belonging to the Spaniard. The prominent among them were the southpaw’s head-to-head record against the top three players (Djokovic, Murray and Federer), his Olympic gold medal and Davis Cup victories. The last two were used as arguments against the Swiss.

It is no secret that Nadal’s head-to-head against the top three players is admirable. But why should McEnroe mention that as a reason behind Rafa’s superiority over the rest? This has not happened overnight. If anything, his head-to-head was even better a couple of years ago till a certain Djokovic made it look pretty decent when he won seven straight finals against him. As far as the Olympic gold medal is concerned, it is not something which the Spanish Armada has won recently. So what is the logic in remembering a five-year old achievement now just to proclaim the greatness of the Spaniard? Roger was without an Olympic gold even then, as he is now.

Anyone who starts following tennis is expected to believe that Rafa is superior to Federer, just by looking at the head-to-head between the two. But listening to McEnroe’s verdict in the Wimbledon round table recently, I wondered if the American too had been misled by the statistics. The better winning record that Rafa seems to be having over Roger, upon further inspection, means nothing. Federer’s record against the Spaniard might look more miserable especially when we speak about Grand Slams. Whenever these two have met each other in the best of five setters, the Spaniard has always come out on top, barring the 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon finals. So does that mean the Swiss maestro is inferior?

While it has to be agreed that Nadal has been beating Federer quite regularly in Grand Slams after Wimbledon 2007, the fact that the former was unable to make it to the finals on a regular basis cannot be overlooked. It is almost as if Nadal wants Federer to be at the other side of the net to capture a Grand Slam title.

Ever since winning his second Wimbledon title in 2004, till a couple of days ago on “Black Wednesday”, Federer has never lost before the last eight stage.

Even in Roland Garros, which is Rafa’s own backyard, the Swiss master has never fallen short of a quarterfinal appearance since reaching his first semifinal in 2005. Except for the fact that the Spaniard won the French Open four consecutive times starting from 2005, nothing separated the two till 2010. Like the King of Clay, Federer also had made it to four Roland Garros finals in succession, the first of which was in 2006, before winning it on 2009.

Nadal became the World No.1 player only after winning his first Grand Slam title outside clay in 2008. He was just 22 when he lost in the fourth round of the French Open in 2009 and was just 26 and 27 respectively when he suffered shocking back-to-back defeats in the second and first round of Wimbledon 2012 and 2013. However, it took almost nine years for Federer to lose in any round before the quarterfinal of a Grand Slam. This further accentuates the fact that the 17-time Grand Slam champion never used to crumble against lesser ranked players in big tournaments, unlike Nadal.

The defeat he suffered in the second round of Wimbledon this year should not really be considered because the Swiss maestro is already in the twilight of his career and is about to turn 32 this August. Since losing the 2005 Australian Open semifinal to Marat Safin, up until 2009 US open, the seven-time Wimbledon champion did not fall to anyone other than Nadal and Djokovic in a Grand Slam, which itself is an amazing record. On the other hand, the 27-year-old Spaniard has lost to many lesser ranked individuals like Gonzalez, Youzhny and Ferrer, to name a few, in majors.

It clearly illustrates the ease with which Roger had handled his opponents during his hey days, as compared to his arch rival. Many Nadal fans have the habit of blaming injuries for their idol’s defeats in the early stages of the tournament. They fail to understand that injuries are part and parcel of the game and given the style of his play, it is he who invites them, more often than not. But Federer, on the contrary, has in his possession a variety of shots which do not require him to play a grinding game like the Spaniard. So he has been able to preserve his energy in the initial stages and save his best for the last. This ability of the Swiss alone indicates that he is the most complete player in the history of the game.

Federer has succumbed to Rafa many a time only because of his mental block against the Spaniard. So it would be appropriate for us to call Nadal as the Swiss’ nemesis.

You may be a better runner than the other athletes participating in a triathlon, but when you are unable to excel at swimming and cycling, which are the early hurdles, you are never going to run your way home first.

Likewise, although Nadal has the ability to beat Federer, it is of hardly any use if he has not been able to beat the other six players consistently in Grand Slams. It is not Roger’s fault that he has faced players other than Nadal in 15 Grand Slam finals which he won out of 17. So, what is the logic in bringing head-to-head records in determining which one of the two is the best?

The record of the eight titles which the southpaw has won in Monte Carlo and Roland Garros may never be broken. But Federer, the 2009 French Open champion, has many more such records in his name, records which will probably remain with him forever. Some of them are listed here below:

1. 36 successive quarterfinals in Grand Slams (can’t help mentioning this one).2. 10 continuous Grand Slam final appearances.3. Four back-to-back Wimbledon and US open victories (2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007).4. Winning three Grand Slams in a year thrice (2004, 2006 and 2007).5. Record number of weeks as World No.1 (302 weeks).6. Victories in 6 World Tour Finals and counting (Remember, only the top eight players compete in this tournament and, more importantly, Nadal has never won this).7. Reaching seven continuous Wimbledon finals (2003-2009). Even Nadal does not have this type of record in French open.8. 55 continuous appearances in Grand Slams. (Exemplifies the fitness level of Fedex).

The aforementioned records are just a handful of Federer’s overall accomplishments. The Spaniard, if he keeps himself fit for the next few years, may surpass Federer’s Grand Slam count just by adding more French Opens. But the big question is if he will be fit enough to do so. Even if he equals or overtakes Federer’s Grand Slam count, the Swiss’ overall records in the game may never be broken.

Will McEnroe ever consider looking into Federer’s achievements again before judging who the greatest ever is?