Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal- A detailed analysis

Since Rod Laver in 1969, no one in the mens' singles has ever won a Golden Grand slam.In 2004, Roger Federer came close to doing so by winning at Melbourne Park, Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows. Yet no one, after Jimmy Connors in 1992, has one the first two grand slams, the Australian and the French Open back-to-back.

Nadal seems to be the only one better than Federer on clay. Being one of the most defensive players on court, he gives Federer a run for his money. He holds a 4-1 record against Federer and that is pretty good considering Federer practically blows off the rest of his opponents. This year seems a bit unpredictable since Federer seems to be getting better on clay each day. Many people would think Nadal being the King of Clay, would win the French Open easily. I don't think that will be the case this time.

This year, Nadal seems to focus more on winning against Federer, and yet we've seen him lose to some unknown people or some lower ranked players at the other two Masters series. If that is the case, I don't think Nadal will last much longer. Let me give an example: Andy Roddick at one stage became soo obsessed with Federer and how to beat him, he left aside the other rising players. Infact, I'm surprised to see him in the top five considering his miserable performance this year.

Federer is on a different league altogether and he probably is one of the greatest players the sport could ever have. Here's my view- Federer will get a Golden Slam- he'll beat Nadal at Roland Garros, Roddick at Wimbledon and someone unseeded at Flushing Meadows.