Superior technique

yes federer plays with grace and is artistry in motion, when connors said your either a clay court specailist or a hard court specialist or a grass court specialist or you roger federer is not quite correct. the fact is roger is good on all surfaces but so is nadal, if anything nadal is better all rounder, he has proved that by mastering roger on all surfaces, yes at the begining the argument was rafa only beats roger on clay on his own favourite surface, but roger has only beaten rafa on his own favourite surface which is grass, but now rafa has beaten roger at wimbledon and australian open as well, but roger is yet to beat rafa at the french or the other two hard courts ie australian and u.s open. so roger has only beaten rafa on one surface, however rafa has beaten roger not only at the french but at australian open and wimbledon as well, so jimmy connors should have said what he said about nadal and not federer,,, and then you have the head to heads, before the talk was nadal has a better head to head cos they have played on clay more times than other surfaces,,, was true until now,, the head to heads now are ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, clay.................... nadal = 12 federer = 2 hard................... nadal = 4 federer = 4 gras................... nadal =1 federer = 2 TOTAL................nadal =17 federer = 8 OTHER STATS all finals................................... nadal = 13 federer = 6 slam finals................................ nadal = 6 federer = 2 slam matches........................... nadal = 7 federer = 2 baest of five matches.............. nadal = 9 federer = 3 five set matches....................... nadal = 3 federer = 2 so as you can see these stats prove how much a greater player rafa is, if roger is the greatest then what does that make rafa, what we have to look at is roger did not beat rafa as easy on grass as rafa beats roger on clay, rafa was also beating roger when roger was at his peak and rafa was a mere teenager, just a kid, roger won 16 slams but only beat rafa in two finals, the other nobodys he has played in the other 14 finals will hardly get a mention in the tennis hall of fame, if roger had to play nadal in more of those 14 finals he might have been lucky to reach 10 slams, yet out of rafas 10 slams he has had to beat roger on six of those finals, he has had to beat the so called greatest on more than 50 percent of his wins. so which of those numbers is more impressive, so winning 10 slams and 6 of which have been through roger is far more impressive than rogers 16 of which only two have come through rafa, the tennis world is getting stronger now than ever before and rogers 16 wins was easier acomplishment than rafas 10 slams, fact is, to be considered the greatest in any sport you have to be at least the greatest of your own era, then you have a fair argument cos if in the argument there is a player from another era, then you cant be too sure cos you cant get them on the pitch at the same time. federer is the second best player of his won era, never mind any other eras, federer is classed as the greatest by some cos of 16 slams wins. rod laver won 11 slams but was not allowed to play for five years, the five years he missed would have been his peak years, his total would have probably been 25 or 26 slams, hi also had just under 200 singles titles, federer has not even reached 70, if its about numbers then laver has better numbers, he has also been number one in more years than federer, the greatset debate can go on for ever and its always gonna bring up all sorts of numbers and stats, but one thing for sure is if you want to be in the argument and be in the consideration for that greatest of all time title you have to become the greatest of your won era first,......