Diffen > Pete Sampras vs Rafael Nadal

The score on Grass is Fed 2 Nadal 1, so frome where does this guy got the idea that Nadal beats Fed consistecly on grass. As far as I know Nadal is ahead because so many matches had been played on grass. I think the breakdown is Nadal 13 Fed 7 Grass 1 2 Clay 9 2 Hard 3 3 So Nadal definetely has the edge on Clay, but that is it. The reason Nadal is ahead is because the had met mostly on Clay in finals since Nadal did not make the final in grass or hard enough. So I will advise a little mote of consistency in the way this guy states its results. Lets see what happens in the future.

Pete never never even reached the final of the French and that it is a great fault. Fed, on the other hand can be considered the second best clay courter behind Nadal of this generation. Five straight Wimbledons and Five straight US Opens speaks for themselves. Grass was faster in Wimbledon in Pete´s Time and Fed beat Pete in Wimbledon on that slick grass. As Mac once said, nobody has a perfect game, but for that matter Fed game is more complete than Pete´s game. By the way, Fed is the only top ten player to have ever beat Nadal on clay. Today grass does not allow serve and volley in Wimbledon. Imagine Pete trying to match strokes from the baseline with Nadal. Fed has gotten 3 times to the F= final, Pete got none.

Sampras never would have beaten Nadal on clay, however, on hardcourts and grass, I agree with you, Nadal would never break Sampras with the regularity that he breaks Federer. Currently I think that Sampras has to be rated higher than Federer, whose career still has a way to go. Interestingly, I believe that Federer CAN be rated the greatest ever while still having a losing record against Nadal. He does need to improve that record, but for me, if Federer reclaims the No1 ranking, wins back Wimbledon and wins a French Open (let's say Nadal gets injured?) then he is quite clearly the greatest of all-time.

Roger Federer fails against Nadal because Roger's serve is not as good as Pete Sampras. If you lose your serve against Sampras, you lose the set and gradually the match as Pete is too good with his serves. That also makes the answer whether Fed is the best in history. The answer is no. How could u be the best in history if a player of your era beats you consistently and on all surfaces - French on clay, Wimbledon on grass and Australian Open on hardcourt and that too when Fed is not playing badly either. Pete didn't lose that many matches on big ocassions against players of his era, for example Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Boris Becker or Goran Ivanisevic. Pete won them and had Nadal had been in that era, Pete would have beaten Rafa as well. If his serve is working, it is impossible to beat Pete. You just watch from the baseline at his aces and against his baseliners and big names, he used to play better.