What does Nadal have to do to be considered better than Federer?**
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
and he has been for 2 of the past 3 years. To be better than Federer all-time, he's got a long way to go. Federer made the finals in 16 out of 17 grand slams at one point. Nadal's best so far is 3 out of 4. Fed also has 16 grand slam titles to Nadal's 8 (maybe 9 after today). Not saying Nadal can't get there, but he's still got a long way to go to match Fed all-time.
I think if he wins another Australian and US Open (assuming he wins today), he could easily be argued as the best all around player ever.
that would give him all4 slam titles at the same time, something Federer has never done, so that would help. But I think, aslawdawg points out, that what is even more imressive than Fed's grand slam titles is his number of finals and semi-finals appearances in a row.
and he has had knee problems, so doubt he will last for the long haul. But I'm not a tennis buff like some here, just an opinion from a causal fan.
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/console/console.cbs.html
I got to it through cbssports.com, if the link doesn't work.
I got to it through cbssports.com, if the link doesn't work.
He's got to match or surpass Fed's all time slams record, bottom line. Also, as Pat mentioned, holding all four at one time would set him apart, as would winning EACH slam more than once, which no one has done in the modern era. Fed and Agassi have only won once in Paris. Nadal already has multiple titles at Roland Garros and more than one at Wimbledon, so he needs one more in Australia and one more in NYC after today (assuming he wins)</p>
