Rafael Nadal's Is The Greatest Tennis Player of all Time
In most people's minds, Roger Federer is the undisputed greatest of all time in men's tennis history: he has the most grand slam titles/finals/SFs/QFs, the most weeks spent at #1, and seemingly unbreakable streaks of 10 consecutive finals, 23 consecutive semifinals, 36 consecutive quarterfinals.
But most people are wrong: when Rafael Nadal's resume is juxtaposed with Federer's, it becomes clear that it is he who deserves the best ever moniker.
Nadal is 23-14 head-to-head with Federer, including 9-3 in Grand Slams, and 6-3 in Slam finals
37 games is not an insignificant sample size, nor is 23-14 close. Granted, Federer has the slight edge (12-10) in matches played off clay courts, but Nadal is 13-2 when they played on the dirt. And in their biggest matches in grand slams, Nadal has dominated. Even if we removed Nadal's 5 wins over Federer at the French Open, he still has a winning record against Federer in grand slams.
Nadal has won a higher percentage of grand slam matches, and grand slams entered
Nadal has won 16 of 50 grand slams he's entered, or 32% of all slams played.
Federer has won 19 of 71 grand slams he's entered, or 26.7% of all slams played.
Nadal's slam W/L: 226-33, 87.26%
Federer's slam W/L: 325-52, 86.21%
Nadal has more Master's 1000 titles and Olympic Gold Medals
Other than grand slams, Master's 1000 events are the toughest and most prestigious events on tour. Nadal is tied with Novak Djokovic with the most 1000 title wins at 30. Federer is 4 behind with 26.
Further, Nadal won olympic gold in both singles and doubles, while Federer only won it in doubles.
Nadal's best surface is under represented on tour
Granted, Federer's best surface is grass, which is also under represented on tour with only a few tournaments a year. However, Clay is played all over the world, yet there is only a short 2-3 month clay court season, yet hard courts (which are far more similar to grass than clay) are played all year long. There's a much stronger correlation between strong grass court players and strong hard court players as there is between either surface and clay. Given this, you could argue that near 50% of the tournaments on tour should be the slower clay courts to balance out with the faster courts.
Not to mention, Nadal beat Federer in the Wimbledon final and took another match to 5 sets while Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal at the French and never took Rafa all 5 sets.
Had Nadal won their final in Australia, in which he was up a break in the 5th, this debate may already be over.
- Nadal would be only 1 slam behind (17 to 18) instead of 3 (16 to 19)
- Nadal would be 10-2 in grand slams, and 7-2 in finals
- Nadal would have at least two wins at each major
Instead, that single match, or you could extend it to a come from behind win in that single set, kept Federer's place in the public's mind as the current G.O.A.T. But when you look at the bigger picture -- dominating head to head record, won a higher percentage of slams, more big titles outside of slams -- Nadal has a compelling argument for why he is the best ever.
My name is Ryan Daut and I'd love to have you as a follower. Click here to go to my page, then click 
in the upper right corner if you would like to see my blogs and articles regularly.
I am a professional gambler, and my interests include poker, fantasy sports, football, basketball, MMA, health and fitness, rock climbing, mathematics, astrophysics, cryptocurrency, and computer gaming.
Cool breakdown.
Just to devil advocate a little:
One could be worse than the other H2H but still greater in general. Like if you're a uniquely bad matchup for me and usually beat me, but I'm way better against the field than you...
H2H for sure should mean something but it wouldn't settle it, even with an infinite sample size.
And Nadal probably is a way worse matchup (lefty, basically) than vice versa.
And true about clay being underrepresented. Altho the other side of the coin is clay is much lower variance. It's much tougher for a worse player to get lucky and win on clay than on grass, where it's relatively simple to hold and matches will more often hinge on a few break point chances.
To be honest, I'm playing devil's advocate: I still think Roger's the greatest, but if Rafa wins 2 more slams than Fed from here out I'll probably change my mind for good.
But yes, head to head isn't everything, particularly when Rafa matches up so well with Federer in general due to heavy topspin vs one handed backhand. It was just one piece of the argument why Rafa will be the greatest if he pulls closer in slams.
For sure! It's really so hard to say, and there are reasonable arguments one way or the other.
This has been a really bad year for Djokovich's legacy, lol. He still has time tho.
Yup, if Novak goes on a roll the next few years he will go down as the goat. Winning record vs both, most Master's 1000 titles (tied with Rafa), strong on every surface, highest peak ELO rating ever, and won his slams vs tougher competition (rafa and fed, instead of winning many in the early to mid 2000s vs weaker players)
both are great player .. Don't compare them just enjoy their game . :)
I love Rafael Nadal
Nice breakdown. Can we expect to see any NFL DFS breakdowns, or 'secrets' this season - From a fellow LPer :D
I really enjoyed your article on Nadal, this spaniard is the king of tennis at the moment that's for sure. He has earn't his respect and has a never give up attitude. I've seen him play live here at the Australian open a few years ago. Well worth the money I was stocked and he won the match that day. I have up voted and followed you @daut44
You make some great points but as far as the head to head goes, remember Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. This is one of those things where a great younger player comes up and plays the great older player and the head to head is skewed because the older player isn't as great as he used to be. Granted Roger is having a tremendous year. But this works in Nadal's favor.