Whenever I watch federer play, I want him to win. I just love the way he plays each shot. Nadal does not have that beauty in his shorts, But I also truely agree that, Nadal is a deserving champion. Both of them has display high quality tennis, especially in 2008. Lets wait for more. And my kudoos for such a good article.

Lets face it, people are fans of people. Would golf have been so popular among the youth if not for Tiger? Would MI-3 have made so much money at the box office if a no name actor played the lead role in place of Cruise? Plus watching ur fav star play gives it a more emotional content and people relate to people rather than the sport per se, which is after all just a set of rules. So I am sorry, but you really cannot be just a fan of a set of rules, which is what tennis is, that's like saying u r a fan of relativity. So I am an Einstein fan and a Federer fan.

You're missing the point, the foundation of Federer;s success is his incredible gift for tennis and his ability to play a more complicated game on a higher aesthetic than any other player in history. Greats such as Rod Laver and Mcenroe have spoken of how they wished they could play at that level, whereas they would never speak the same of Nadal, who although a brilliant player, relies heavily on his ability to generate power and topspin using body strength.

I agree with John Davis's comment and assessment of Nadal's game totally. If Nadal wasn't a leftie and didn't have the monsterous topspin, he wouldn't be able to have a winning record against Federer.

I agree with Prasanth, I love to see the magical, fluid game of Federer. And therefore I root for him, i can never get enough of seeing him play. That does not mean Nadal is not a great player too. I just do not like his power and heavy topspin, a question of taste. Also I am not paticularly fond of clay court tennis. Rolland Garros is my least favotite Grand Slam. And not only because Federer never won there, but I like the faster courts better. I find tennis on grass or hardcourt more entertaining. Ik hope Federer wil play on his top level for a long time still and the same goes for Nadal.

It is like saying if Phelps didn't have a feet size 13 or something. Or more in context, Safin weren't mad, Graf wasn't the best athlete, women had testosterone! And regarding aesthetics of the game, I agree Federer's is beautiful but Nadal is swashbuckling. And yeah the Mc would wish he were as good as Federer but that is because Federer is at the apex of the kind of game McEnroe learnt and wished to play. Nadal's game is unlike what anybody has played in history simply because it is home grown. if anything that is more admirable! but not everyone needs to be impressed i guess. as long as the results keep coming in.

Federer is the Greatest, unrivalled at that. Nadal will burn Out, mark my words, he is nowhere near Federer's class, forget abt even being a significant one in the race for the Greatest of all time. Nadal is not technically perfect, doesnt have Federer's Variety, is more or less a One Dimensional Player. He is in good form these days, he is young and has athletic superiority (The only are where he is truly superior to Federer). How long will it last? Wait and watch....

For me Federer against Nadal is like Don Corleone vs Tatalia. Fed is the one with charachter, class, beauty of the moves. Nadal is the street smart, muscular, driven by sheer will of delivery. I root for .

"I find it especially demeaning when someone calls himself a tennis fan and still resorts to such petty favouritism." What a strange thing to say. I call myself a football fan. Do I demean the sport just because I believe Liverpool FC are the real deal and have more heart and class than ManU will ever have? Sabarish Chirayil thinks "Nadal has the game and the mind to go greater than Fedex". Why is this assertion not "plain jealous wishful thinking"? At the end of the day, the question of who's greater can only be settled (assuming it can be settled) when both players have hung up their rackets. To avoid demeaning tennis as a sport, perhaps one should start by respecting the preferences (or favoritism) of individual fans.

i liked the article and found it to be truthful.....I think that Nadal has his own points of brilliance ....he I find does have an athetic quality to his game in the muse of a swashbuckler........albeit not the parallel of Federer's genius and flow........

Dear Sabarish Chirayil, you wrote: What a true tennis fan should wish is for Nadal to achieve that mantle and along the way produce some awe-inspiring tennis for us to enjoy. And why I love Nadal so much is because that boy will do everything in his capacity to deliver. Wow, just wow! That is exactly it. There is nothing I can add to this. Just say: Thank you so much !

Like someone above said 'Nadal is lefty and has a good topspin' that before us open noone can beat him. Guys, you see, Murray is the one who showed he could manage that! Besides, the way Nadal did before he played, how slowly he serves, these can be assumed that he cheats the player opposite him. So I'd love to tell you espescially the writer, I'm a tennis fan and I've watched tennis for more than thirty years, I've never seen any players played like 'Federer'. Samprass was a very good player but Federer is more than that. And when the best player had a bad time during his career is so natural. Samprass didn't have any major for about 24 months and some guys (tennis player) said he will never did again, you know after that Samprass got US OPEN! Don't make a judge about Federer and Nadal now, it's a long way for both. I'll keep eyes on Nadal and count how many weeks he can be the world no.1.

Nice article. Less of an article than an opinion. No doubt Nadal deserves the top place this year. He played by far the best tennis this year. Mononucleosis could be the reason or not, but federer wasnt so dominant this year. Lets face it, the center of attraction is Federer anymore, nor Nadal and Federer combined. Djokovic has proved his talent and determination and Murray performing so intelligently this season, we officially have four guys who would be the biggest obstacles of each other in the coming matches and tours. One thing I agree that The way Roger plays is unbeatable in a sense of style and grace. that overshot slice against Djokovic in the Us open semis is the proof. And please you can well claim that you like a sport and be a fanatic. Please fans decide the existence of a sport. If sports only included the idea of actual game. Imagine an empty stadium or a bunch of people nodding and having intellectual scrutiny of the game. that kinda thing dont exist. We can well claim that we like a sports and be a fanatic. Thats why there are two teams and there is a prize money. Athletes are motivated by the crowds and the fame.

I didn't used to watch tennis games at all until late last year when I saw Federer play and then suddenly I was a tennis buff. So at least for me, it is the player that makes a fan not the game itself. Then I got to know Nadal, Djokovic and the rest but there was noone like Fed. Nadal looks like the bullying boy who roars over each shot, flexes muscle and looks angry at times. Fed by contrast looks like the leader of an orchestra, beautiful movements, quiet, classy. Doing everything in one's capacity to deliver is not enough for me to be a fan. You have to deliver it beautifully, do creative deliveries which often are less muscular and more genius. Rafa lacks this. Wishful thinking or not, Nadal's grinding style will have a toll. Murray showed us how " everything in his capacity to deliver" can be used to wear him out.

ffff

Federer is greatest in his generation because the competitors (Andy Rod, Hewis, Safin) with similar ages are simply too bad. All his competitors except Nadal won more than 2 grand slams which is a requirement to show as great champion. Nadal, Novak, Murray are 5-6 years younger than Federer, therefore there is nearly about 5 years gap when Federer does not have any strong components. One should not forget that Nadal is only 22 this year and he can improve many things while Federer is not even well known when he was 22. Federer's main weapon is his serve and mobility. When Federer does not serve well, he will lose often.

Everyone has their favorites based on their personal opinions, their persoanl likes/dislikes. What I don't understand is why some people have to demean the other players. Albert, good comment. Earlier post "If Nadal wasn't a leftie and didn't have the monsterous topspin, he wouldn't be able to have a winning record against Federer." --- duh, whatever. If god hadn't given Federer his abilities, Federer wouldn't have accomplished what he has.

In 2009,an asteroid hitting the is 0.01% but Nadal hitting the world(4 Grand Slams is 99.99%

Both players have completely different styles. Federer's records are fact and counting. Nadal is starting, he is no where in the league of Federer in records. Yes Nadal is successful on clay, but is that enough. Nadal has had 12 injuries in the last 5 years, his knees are strapped constantly, his left foot and ankel strapped, now even his fingers are strapped, he is only 22. Federer 5 years his senior has had 1 injury in his whole career and he is 27. Nadals game is writing cheques his body cant cash. Murray is a very intelligent player and read Nadal's unbeatable game and totally out played him. Nadal asrnal is very one dimensional, hit hard, if that doesnt work hit harder and chase every ball down. It was witnessed that his game has so many weaknesses in it, it actually plays against him when it comes to an intelligent game. Now others have seen how weak Nadals game really is, there will be more adopting the shots Andy used to beat him. Federer, he got a shock when his illness affected his game as badly as it did. He didnt lose his want to win, it was taken from him at that time. Now I feel we will see a new Roger Federer back with all guns blazing. Titles done mean that muchj to him now, he has so many, Roger is after records. I think French/Wimbledon, Petes GS record which will all bring back his number 1 status. Then it will be 2012 Olympic games single medal. Where he goes from there.......Husband.father....charities, coach.....the world is his oyster. There is no one who PLAYS like Roger Federer, but there are a few that create wins.

I enjoyed reading the post as well as the outstanding comments. What we all see how Rafa hard fights to win. But here is a key fact that is very much unnoticed. Look at the scores in Rafa's losses. He often looses in not long straight sets, rarely takes it four tough/long sets, and almost never to five. It's almost as if Rafa knows when he has no chance of winning, so he stops fighting or gives up. On the contrary, when Roger wins he wins so convincingly and makes it look so easy. It is when he looses, he does it in long fought sets, in tie breaks, often in four and five sets where he even has many break/set/match points through the match. That is, even when Roger is not playing well he fights all the way to the end and makes it clear that he in fact should have won the match he just lost. Roger's fighting qualities are totally underrated.

I don't see Nadal has apparent weakness in his game. His serve is probably the weakest in his whole game and he is improving it. His touch and volley is one of the greatest. Of course, since he grows up in clay, many of the game is best suit to the clay where is even dominant than Federer in other surfaces. But I think Nadal has the talent and physical condition to change his game to other surfaces. Maybe, he need a second coach for his serve to work with Uncle Tony. If Nadal is a true greatest, he will eventually do it by adjust himself. let see what happen in 2-3 years..

Roger has the disadvantage of not meeting Rafa in surfaces other than clay with the result, he head-to-head count is not impressive. This is because while Roger invariably reaches the final in the clay court tournament he pays, that cannot be said about Rafa who is getting defeated midway. No comparison with Roger, who is a magician with a raquet.

Roger has the disadvantage of not meeting Rafa in surfaces other than clay with the result, he head-to-head count is not impressive. This is because while Roger invariably reaches the final in the clay court tournament he pays, that cannot be said about Rafa who is getting defeated midway. No comparison with Roger, who is a magician with a raquet.

Just realized this was a comment by our author: "...Federer is at the apex of the kind of game McEnroe learnt and wished to play. Nadal's game is unlike what anybody has played in history simply because it is home grown. If anything that is more admirable!" If by home-grown, our author was referring to Nadal being coached by his uncle, then I'm afraid I fail to see the point. Surely Nadal is not the only successful player in history coached by a close family member. And players who achieve success with the help of non-family members are less admirable??? Are we running out reasons to support the premies that Nadal is greater than Roger-the-greatest? Whatever it is, never mind as I can't agree more more with the author's added comment that "not everyone needs to be impressed ...as long as the results keep coming in". Let's see who will have achieved what by the time both Federer and Nadal have hung up their racquets.

Though i am not a tenis afficionado, i would like to say that the article is very well written....and coming to the exact debate that is going on here of the never ending Nadal Vs Federer Comparisons...i would agree with somebody who said above that 'people are fans of people' and because of that people root for a Nadal/Federer. Having said that i really like Nadal for the wonderful person that he is and Federer for his achievement.

@Albert Z that argument has been written for a very long time already. of course what I can say is that that arugument can go on circles: it's either federer's opponents are really weak or federer is just too strong, hence no one has won more slams because he kept winning them all, except the FO. i'd go for the latter, since the pattern in which federer won those slams are evident. how many slams can your opponents win if you are almost averaging 3 slams per year for the past 4 years? no one in the sport has ever dominated the game like federer did.

that maybe nadal was already wore out? I mean the guy was on this unbelievable streak for the last few months. granted, murray played great, but i just have to wonder if he would have won had nadal had the amount of rest that murray had this year.