From 2004 until 2007, Federer put on a three year display of brilliance that afforded many the opportunity to gush over his technical skill set, and dramatic artistic flair. Federer was in his prime, he owned just about every shot in the book and won nearly three out of every four majors he entered.

After capturing the 2005 U.S. Open, many pundits began preaching some particularly lofty rhetoric. After capturing his sixth Grand Slam singles title in such a short span, and in such a dominant manner, questions began to swirl over whether or not this man was indeed the best tennis player to have ever lived and even more importantly, would he one day become the Greatest Player of All Time?

Fast forward to right now. Federer sits having completed a career grand slam, owning a record 16 Grand Slam Singles titles, over 60 ATP tournament titles, and having logged over 200 weeks as the world's number one player. Frankly, it's surreal that we are even discussing the fact that one man has accomplished so much in a career. Isn't he the greatest ever? Doesn't his stat sheet alone as this put him in that seat?

Not so fast...There is indeed another worth suitor waiting in the wings, and he's making some of the very same people who so quick to crown Federer, rethink the decision. His name is Rafael Nadal, and like it or not he is very methodically making his own case.

Begin Slideshow

Obviously I’m talking about Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.

We’ve heard the same rhetoric over and over again. Obviously, these are two great Champions. Obviously, we’d love to see them contest yet another classic Final.

However, as I read some fan articles and comments posted on Bleacher Report, I’m struck by the fact that some people have a serious misconception about the matchup between Roger and Rafa. I’d like to get into a bit of detail about the match and dispel some of the common myths surrounding these two players.

First of all, television commentary can be very useful in offering a very general, bird’s eye view of the matchup between Federer and Nadal. The key word being “general ”.

A commentator’s job is to help the viewer feel like they are invested in a given match. They look to provide a bit of insight into why a given match is unfolding the way it is. This is a very remedial explanation. It’s designed to highlight some of the big themes, but not go into too much detail, thus risking confusion or boredom on the part of the viewer.

Why do I bring this up? Well, much has been made about Rafael Nadal’s recent hard court Grand Slam success.

A commentator may make a much generalized statement about the fact that Nadal is flattening out his shots, thus making him a more effective hard court player.

In hearing that statement, it’s not difficult for a tennis fan to attempt to connect the dots and say something to the effect of, “Since Rafa’s lefty topspin is the major reason why he beats Federer so often, using a flatter ball will help Federer handle his game better, causing him to gain the upper hand in the rivalry.”

After Rafa’s only claim to dominance over Federer is on account of his heavy, lefty forehand. Wrong. This is a seemingly logical leap to make, yet it’s a gross mistake to jump to such a conclusion. Allow me to explain.

First of all, let’s understand that Rafael Nadal still uses heavy topspin on every surface he plays on. Nadal did not wake up one morning and decide to throw out his entire game in favor of hitting a flat ball, like Juan Martin Del Potro or Andre Agassi. That’s a grave misunderstanding of what commentators are saying. Nadal’s shots are still the heaviest on tour, and will still kick up very high off most ATP’s court surfaces.

The elements Nadal has added to his game, which make him far more dangerous on faster surfaces, are depth of shot and the ability to recognize and capitalize on openings ceded to him by his opponents.

On hard courts, Nadal’s Achilles heel was his tendency to hit heavily top spun strokes which had very high net clearance, but also landed shallow in the court. Over the past three years, Nadal has worked hard on hitting his heavy forehand deeper in the court.

The difference is very visible. Take a look at a routine Nadal forehand from say 2006 or 2007. You will notice that many of his shots land at or around the service box. The ball does indeed kick up, but because it’s so shallow in the court, a good ball striking opponent had the opportunity and took the ball on the rise from around the baseline or even inside the court. The lack of shot depth has been Nadal’s undoing in the past.

If we carefully examine Nadal’s historic title run at this past U.S. Open, we notice where his forehands are landing in the court. The new Nadal forehand is landing several feet past the service line. This means that the ball will explode off of the court even closer to the baseline, which is where his opponent would normally want to return his shots from.

Even the very good, flat hitters out there are forced to make contact with the ball further back than they would generally like to. This deeper contact point only allows them to stay neutral in the point, whereas before they’d be looking to rob Nadal of time to set up his big swings, but spitting back a very fast very angled reply.

Barring a truly magical shot here or there, the opponent is basically reduced to hitting a neutral ball back to Nadal. In turn, Nadal has his normal time to set up. When given that time to set, Nadal will take control of the point from any player in the world.

The only way to beat Rafael Nadal is to take his time away and to disrupt his rhythm. He simply will not be beaten in any other way.

Much has been made of Nikolay Davdenko's recent success against Nadal. Davydenko’s success has been predicated by the depth of the Nadal ground strokes. This year’s Semifinal encounter at Doha was practically a white wash for Davydenko. Most likely a combination of Davydenko recognizing and taking hit opportunities, and Nadal’s battle with the flu.

If we examine the pair’s previous nine matchups, the deciding factor has always been court positioning and the depth of Nadal’s shots.

Take the first set of the 2010 Doha Final. Nadal won it easily, 6-0. He hit the ball deep in the court, used his customary topspin and cruised. However, as the match went on Nadal began to throw in some short balls.

Davydenko owns very good timing and is a smart player. He immediately recognized the opportunity and stepped up into the court to take full advantage. As soon as he was able to wrestle control away from Nadal, he never looked back. On account of the hard court surface, Davydenko stopped and planted on a dime, and subsequently was able to control the vast majority of the rallies. As a result, Davydenko came back to win in three sets.

There are several players who can trouble Nadal, IF he allows them to. The match is on the racquet of the World’s number one.

At times during one week events, Nadal has reverted back to dropping the ball short. I believe that he does have to fight against himself, and his tendency to want to go back to the security blanket of his past style of play.

However, he has shown over the past year that he is both willing and able to raise the level of his game at the Grand Slams. A man doesn’t win three consecutive Majors, with a good look at winning a fourth, without understanding this concept. That is to say that the regulation, cross court forehand that he hits in Toronto, is not the same regulation cross court forehand he hits at Flushing Meadows.

The man has a distinct ability to heighten his awareness and concentration in more significant matches. That’s a fact.

This idea that a more aggressive style of play will somehow hurt him in his matches against Roger Federer is a ridiculous claim. The Nadal lefty forehand is still a heavy shot and it still is racing into the Federer one handed backhand. The Nadal forehand will beat the Federer backhand seven out of ten times. We’ve seen that enough over the years.

The only difference is that now, the Nadal forehand is landing deeper and forcing Federer to take more chances to even stay neutral in the point. Federer will once again be forced to walk a tight rope. He will have to hit spectacular shot after shot to beat Nadal.

In account that he is Roger Federer, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest pure shot makers in the history of the game, he will always have that chance. But to ask a man to do it over a long period of time is a big ask.

When a commentator or pundit talks about Nadal’s hitting flatter strokes, he means that Nadal is recognizing openings more readily and is comfortable pulling the trigger and flattening a deserving ball for a winner, or a very forceful shot which will almost always lead to him winning the point outright with the following shot.

It does not mean that Nadal is no longer looping the ball to Roger, believe me he is.

The two shots that most tennis experts point to as being the flatter shot, which has catapulted Nadal to the dominant number one ranked player, are the Nadal forehand down the line and the Nadal cross court backhand.

Rafa is the best in the world at executing these two shots. The big forehand down the line is a back breaker. It’s so difficult to defend because Rafa’s variety is so good at keeping opponents off balance. He gives you a good dose of the heavy, deep spin a good three or four times in the row, barely giving you a chance to hit a neutral shot back. He takes your legs away by forcing you to sprint side to side, retrieving heavy shots.

After he’s forced you to expend extensive amounts of energy to stay in the point, boom! He flattens out a forehand up the line. A wicked shot and one that I believe puts him on a different plane from everyone else on tour. If Nadal is hitting that shot well, there is no known answer for his game.

The Nadal running two handed backhand cross court is amongst the most powerful and devastating shots in the game. Because Nadal is actually a right handed person in everyday life, he has the ability to accelerate through the strike zone off of the backhand side like no one else on the ATP tour, and hit a hard flat shot when most players would only be able to throw up a defensive lob or slice.

The pace he is capable of creating with his backhand is unmatched. Perhaps Robin Soderling, or Tomas Berdych come close, but even those two huge hitters can’t quite get the same mustard on the backhand that we see from Nadal. 

It used to be commonly known that Nadal simply used his backhand to stay in a point. It was neither a good nor bad shot, but was certainly targeted by most opponents. He preferred to do all of his damage from the forehand side.

This is no longer the case. The Nadal backhand is now capable of changing the pace (with the one-handed slice), rolling it heavily over the net as a regular rally shot, or exploding through the court for a flat winner. It’s just one more headache for opponents to have to deal with. Nadal has become lethal off both wings, an adjustment that Federer too is implementing into his game.

However, simply put, Nadal is better off on the backhand side than Federer. His backhand is a bigger shot, a heavier shot and handles the pace much better.

When people talk about Nadal’s “new look” game and how he’s flattening out his shots they are talking about his adding an extra dimension to his game, a new wrinkle if you will.

The new wrinkle is retrofitted onto his base game, which is a heavy topspin based, clay court game. Nadal’s new game will not hurt him against Roger Federer, after all, why would he go away from a game plan for Federer which has already worked so often and on so many big occasions.

If anything, the prospect of watching a ball fly by him will put Federer on edge. If Roger does beat Nadal, it will not be because Nadal decided to flatten out his forehand at times. It will be either because Federer played the match of his life and stayed at a level we haven’t seen for an unprecedented period of time, or because something happens to Nadal, physically before or during the match.

I hope this can give some context around the words of pundits such as John McEnroe and Justin Gimelstob mean when they talk about Nadal’s “flattening out” of his strokes.

It’s an allusion to his new found ability to end points out right on faster surfaces by forcing the action himself and hitting winning shots rather than forcing opponent’s errors and attempting to grind them into submission. The latter is a much tougher way to earn a living on a quick surface.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Rafael Nadal has the opportunity to finally set himself apart from rival Roger Federer, by pulling off a win at the season’s opening Grand Slam at the Australian Open.

For years, despite Nadal’s own lofty achievements, whether justly or unjustly, Nadal has always been mentioned in the context of Roger Federer. To the Swiss’ credit, he does have 16 Grand Slam titles, a number tough to overshadow. But Nadal, who himself has compiled 9 slams of his own, and completed a career golden slam at age 24 (a notoriety which Federer is still seeking), stands on the verge of a truly historic accomplishment.

Nadal has the opportunity to become the first male tennis player ever to win four consecutive Grand Slam Singles titles on four different surfaces. Andre Agassi fell short by a single match from Roland Garros 1999 to the Australian Open 2000, losing only the Wimbledon Final. More recently Roger Federer fell just short of a calendar Slam in 2006 and 2007, losing the French Open Final on both occasions. While Rod Laver earned the unique distinction of winning two calendar slams, three of the four Majors were played on grass and the other on clay.

Part of the remarkable nature of the modern feat would be the fact that now two of the four Majors are played on hard courts, a surface which is much more grueling on the body. Indeed, it takes a very special player and a very unique mental outlook to accomplish such a feat. A second Australian Open title would mark Nadal’s third hard court Grand Slam Singles title, relegating claims of his being a mere clay court specialist to the realm of stupidity. It would also put him in a context of his own, in the realm of accomplishment not shared with Roger Federer.  Nadal would stand by himself, and force the public to accept that we are, and have been since 2008 living in the Nadal Era.

Without a doubt Roger Federer will enter the Australian Open with guns blazing, feeling about a confident as he can these days. Federer did indeed win the pair’s latest official ATP encounter, a terrific three set win at the World Tour Finals in London. Strictly by the numbers, Federer was the hottest player on tour from after Wimbledon until the close of the season. Despite those stats, Roger would almost certainly trade his sterling match record, and even his WTF Title for a coveted U.S. Open trophy, a piece of hardware that went to his rival Nadal.

As Federer enters the twilight of his career, he is still able to find motivation that most Champions begin to lack at this stage of their careers. That motivation comes from Rafael Nadal.

Federer wants to beat him so badly he can taste it. Knowing full well that Nadal is and has been playing at a level above everyone else on the tour for about a year now, the Swiss demonstrated his will to improve by hiring former Pete Sampras coach, Paul Annacone. So far the results have been pretty good by Federer’s lofty standards, amazing by normal standards. But as Annacone and Federer know, ultimately the success or failure of this partnership will be solely based upon Federer’s winning Grand Slams.

Can Annacone affect enough change in Roger’s game to make him present a stiffer challenge to the world’s best player? The jury remains out. One positive sign for Federer is that he was able to defeat Nadal in London. It was a three set match, and winning a decisive set against a player who enjoys a distinct mental advantage is a giant step toward evening the rivalry. But a low bouncing-indoor court, in a best of three set-formats is a far cry from beating Nadal in a grueling best of five set Grand Slam Final environment. While Federer’s return of serve seems to be better than it ever has been, Nadal’s serve seems to be better than it ever has been.

In looking at Roger and Rafa, it seems to be that these two titans appear to be on course for perhaps one final Major encounter. But we’d be foolish to dismiss a few others who can challenge even these two great players.

While Robin Soderling will be a fashionable upset pick, I don’t see it happening. To me, Soderling has shown his entire hand. He threw out the kitchen sink to beat Roger Federer at Roland Garros last year, and had a chance to assert himself as a Grand Slam contender by beating the man he’d dethroned the previous year, in the Final. Beating Federer and Nadal in the same event would have taken Soderling’s confidence to the next level, and made him a much more dangerous player. He played his heart out in the Final of Roland Garros, and was simply beaten by Nadal, who was simply a better player. He had a legitimate shot at revenge at Wimbledon a few weeks later and the truth was confirmed again. Finally at the U.S. Open QF a lopsided loss to Federer, it became even more apparent. Robin Soderling is a top 10 player, but not a guy with a complete enough game to win a Grand Slam in this day and age. Perhaps five or six years ago he could have snuck one or two in, but not now. The win’s over Federer and Nadal over the past two years seem more like an anomaly than the rule. His lack of variety and movement will stall him.

The two men who do not fear Nadal or Federer, yet still are not as good as good as them are Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray.

If anyone other than Nadal or Federer is to win this upcoming Grand Slam, Djokovic is the guy. Murray has the potential, but has been streaky in Grand Slam play. Murray matches up very well with Nadal on a slow hard court, but best of three is a lot different than best of five. Also, there were weaknesses present in Nadal’s game at the times Murray  collected his two Grand Slam wins over Nadal which simply aren’t present now.

In other words, Nadal has gotten better while Murray is more or less the same player.

Djokovic’s lot is much stronger. Principally because he’s won a Grand Slam title already and understands what it takes to do so. Second, he’s beaten Roger Federer in a Grand Slam (a notoriety which provides players with a certain swagger). Finally, his game is probably the second (only to Nadal) most balanced between offense and defense. The Djokovic movement allows him to defend the court nearly as well as Andy Murray while his timing and technique (especially on the forehand) allow him to dictate play and sting clean winners down the lines in a way that few players can. Djokovic is explosive enough to put the ball by both Federer and Nadal. But he’s also patient enough to hang with them in longer rallies. His best is not as good as their best, and his average game is not as good as their average game, but in a combination of him playing his best and Federer or Nadal playing average or below average can put Djokovic in the winner’s circle.

Another man to look out for is Tomas Berdych. Many so-called experts would like to write his 2010 off as a one year aberration. I’m not buying that. Berdych is one of the purest ball strikers on the tour right now. He’s got Soderling’s power, but with a lot more mobility, a lot more touch, and a lot more variety. If his serve is working, he can beat anyone in the world with power and placement. Berdych has played well in the beginning part of the season before. He likes a slow hard court surface, and if he’s feeling he’s one of the very few players on tour with even a shot to bother Federer or even Nadal. Don’t give up on Soderling quite yet.

At the end of the day, there is a better than 50% chance that we will be looking at a Federer-Nadal Final once again. I think it could be the last time, so should it happen savor it, DVR it, it’s likely the last time both these guys will play each other when both are relatively close to their peaks.

Without even seeing the draw, I’m picking Rafael Nadal to win his fourth consecutive Grand Slam title, and 10th overall of his career. Why? Isn’t it obvious? Nadal hasn’t been in even any remote danger in a best of five set match since Wimbledon, even then the fifth set was low drama. Rafa is too strong, too fast, too good for anybody to beat in a best of five set match.

The fact that he not only won three consecutive Majors, but lost a total of one set in two of them combined (Roland Garros and U.S. Open) lets the world know that no one is as good as Rafa in a Slam. Federer will likely be Nadal’s nemesis in the Final, but even at his best it’s difficult to see him winning more than a set off Nadal. Expect a spirited performance, similar to the display Djokovic put on at the U.S. Open Final, in the end Nadal will simply have a little too much even for Federer.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

The tennis world is buzzing. Fans of the second best player in the world have taken this recent triumph and run with it. Many believe that the 29 year-old Swiss is poised to mount a serious charge for the world number one ranking, and once claim supremacy in men’s tennis. No doubt, Federer’s path to number one must go through Rafael Nadal.

Currently, Nadal enjoys a 3,305 point cushion over Federer, and leads there head to head series 14-8, including a 5-2 mark in Grand Slam Finals. Despite Nadal’s dominance over every top player in 2010, Federer’s recent sterling form, and pairing with former Pete Sampras coach, Paul Annacone has given license to dream big, to many a Federer follower.

Federer ended 2010 on a very strong note, winning 40 of 44 hard court matches since his four set defeat  in the Quarterfinal round of Wimbledon. A 40-4 record is certainly an eye-opening, and going strictly by the numbers, the best run on tour over that span of time. However, looking closer the four defeats couldn’t have come at worst times. Two came in the Finals of Master’s 1000 events, to the same player, Andy Murray. The other two losses were big-time Semifinal defeats, the most glaring at the Semifinal of the U.S. Open, where he blew a lead over Novak Djokovic. The final loss was in the Semifinals of the Master’s 1000 event in Paris, losing to Gael Monfils.  

However, the WTF in London prove to be an important exercise for 16-time Grand Slam winner. London was important for Federer not because of the magnitude of the tournament (it’s not a Grand Slam, neither is it the first time he’s won this title). This tournament has significance because for the first time really since midway through the Australian Open 2010, Federer closed strong. Man know as the “Maestro” upped his playing level to the point of once again being dominant, and finished his matches strongly. Signature wins over Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic were impressive, as Federer had taken some tough hits against these two younger players over the course of the season. His victory over Nadal was the topper, and will provide him with a boost of confidence going into 2011.

If Federer is to return to the number one spot, his pathway will go through Rafael Nadal at some point. Contrary to the beliefs of casual tennis fans, ex champions, pundits, and tennis experts know that one win over a guy who’s had your number five times out of seven Grand Slam Finals, is not enough to turn the tide of the rivalry. It’s a nice start, but Federer must overcome the Nadal hurdle in Grand Slam competition.

The road will not be easy for Federer considering that Nadal is hands down the best big match player in the world at the moment. Not only has he won three consecutive Grand Slam events, but he enjoys a career record of 14-3 in five set matches. That’s a rare mark. Federer’s nerve has come into question recently amid some blown matches on some big stages (l. Del Potro, 2009 U.S. Open Final; l. Djokovic, 2010 U.S. Open Final). Can Roger Federer still close? The jury is still out.

As for the rivalry of the decade, what does it really come down to? Nadal wins about two matches against Federer for every one that Federer wins. Why? There is an interesting answer to this. Nadal has been about to beat Federer more often than not for a couple of reasons.

• First of all, Federer believes that he has to play perfectly to beat Nadal. Nadal does not believe that he has to play perfectly to beat Federer. This can be seen by how relaxed Nadal on court against Federer and how tight Federer is. This is visible in the shot selection between the two. Federer feels as if he has to jump on Nadal early in a rally. He looks to attack with his forehand even more than usual. Nadal plays his cross court shots and waits for a ball he likes before unleashing his lethal forehand up the line. Even if he finds himself down an early break, he never seems bothered by anything Federer does. Federer seems to go through a range of emotions against Nadal, from intense to irritated, to fired up, finally to resignation.

• Second, the court usually shrinks on Federer. Nadal is so fast, and defends so well that he can keep neutral in a point where Federer has hit two or three brilliant shots. These are shots which would be winners against any other player. It’s unnerving for Federer who keeps upping the ante, until either he wins the point out right or makes an error. Federer didn’t miss much against Nadal in their most recent encounter, thus he won. However the percentages are not with him. He will not play that well every single time out, more often than not when he toes the line that often he’s going to miss more than he makes. It’s not a case of Federer’s best tennis not being enough to beat Nadal. Federer is talented enough to be any player on any given day, if he’s in top form. However, typically a tennis player is only going to play that well a handful of times per year. Likewise, Nadal isn’t going to be in his 2008 French Open Final form every match either. The mark of a great player is how good their game is on an average day. Can they win at 80% capacity? That’s where this rivalry has been lopsided at times. Nadal has beaten Federer in Majors on occasions where he wasn’t playing awesome tennis. When he’s keeping it in neutral, his game is still a tough match-up for Federer.

• Third, the Nadal forehand to the Federer backhand is usually a mismatch. Quite frankly put, it’s a great shot matching up with a good shot. Federer has no weakness in his game. That’s a fact. His backhand is a good shot. But Nadal’s forehand is perhaps the best  the sport has ever seen. Early in a match, depending on the surface Federer can keep it somewhat even going backhand to forehand. But in longer matches, especially best of five set matches his backhand begins to lose its zip. The cross court backhand starts to die shallow in the center of the court, and then its snack time for Nadal. Short of growing a few more inches, or packing on a little bit more muscle up top, there isn’t much that Federer can do about it.

• Fourth, let’s take a closer look at Federer’s eight victories over Nadal. I’m going to show you something interesting. Federer recorded his first career victory over Nadal in 2005, overcoming two sets to love deficit against an 18 year-old and relatively unknown Nadal. The surface was medium speed hard court in Miami. Nadal dominated the world number one early on, but crumbled after being unable to close out Federer early. Since then, Federer has not beaten Rafael Nadal on an outdoor hard court. Two victories on clay in the Finals of both Hamburg and Madrid, both coming less than 24 hours after Nadal had won grueling three and a half hour plus Semifinals. Two victories came on grass at Wimbledon, one four setter and one five setter. The last in coming in 2007.  The other three wins have come at the WTF, in 2006, 2007 and again this year. All three matches were conducted on indoor surfaces. I think that it’s fairly obvious that the truth of the situation is that when you have two great players the deciding factors are usually going to be little things. Things such as the playing conditions. Federer is one of the best indoor players of all time. I don’t think that it’s a secret that an indoor court plays differently from an outdoor court. In perfect playing conditions, Roger excels. The best of three set format also benefits Federer. He doesn’t need to keep up an extremely high standard for as long as he’d need to in a best of five set match. He can build up momentum and close it out quickly. Perhaps most importantly, the physical toll of playing Nadal is much less in a best of three set match.

The weight of Nadal’s shots force a player the hit the ball harder than normal just to keep even in a point. Let me explain it this way, when you face a player who has the weight of shot (by weight I refer to heavy spin and pace combined) that Nadal has, the ball literally pushes your racquet backwards. A player must meet force with force. Let’s conservatively say that the average player has to swing at the ball 8% harder to get the same effect on the ball that normally would against any other player on tour. They must swing even harder move ahead in the point. Now think about it, every time you swing at the ball, you are swinging harder than you are used to. Then tack on the fact that Nadal a human backboard, even your best shots which mentally, you are not used to seeing returned at you, start coming back. So you are rallying a lot more than you are used to. So let’s recap, you are expending extra energy just to hit a normal shot, even more energy to take offense, and on top of that you are involved in longer rallies than you’re used to. Most players can play one competitive set at that level (and these are professionals), before their level tails off significantly. Federer is far from an average ATP player. He’s in great shape, and has quite a bit of firepower, so he’s able to last longer. But then think about when he’s two sets in. Sets are pretty long when playing Nadal. Most likely he will split sets with Nadal. In a best of five set match, he potentially has to expend this much energy for three more sets. It’s torture. Even for Nadal, who can be worn out if he has to play back to back tough matches, he can start out slow and play his way into a match. Once he starts running, he knows how to manage his energy; he knows that in long matches he’s going to get a burst of energy (or a second wind). We’ve seen it from him in the past, it’s one of the reasons he owns a 14-3 five set match record. Nadal is perhaps the most brutal five set opponent a player can face. Federer, who has always been a bit inconsistent in five set matches (17-14 career mark), is in even more trouble against Nadal when match is drawn out. It’s been nearly four years since Federer has beaten Nadal in a best of five set match. Remember, Federer was in his physical prime back in 2007 when he defeated Nadal in a five set Wimbledon Final. He’s lost two five setters to the Spaniard since. At 29, it’s hard to believe he’s physically stronger that he was at 27. Simply put, the chances of Federer all of the sudden being able to neat a bigger, stronger, faster, younger guy, in a best of five set match, on an outdoor court, regardless of the surface, seem a little more than a pipe dream.

The Federer/Nadal rivalry hinges primarily on the fact that Nadal is physically too much for Roger. Add that on to the fact that Nadal continues to improve at an unheard of rate, and has become as complete a player as Federer. While Federer is still capable of the occasional win over Nadal, in a best of three set format, the smart money will be bet on Nadal when it comes to a potential Grand Slam encounter.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Roger Federer is out to prove a point. This fact is fairly obvious.

The 16-time Swiss Grand Slam titlist has been on a roll as he looks to end 2010 in strong fashion.

After a fairly comprehensive defeat at hands of Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon, Federer has reached the Finals of the Tennis Master’s events in Canada, and Shanghai (l. to Andy Murray, both times), the Semi-Finals of the U.S. Open (l. Djokovic) and The Tennis Master’s Event in Paris (l. Monfils).

Federer however has added back to back titles in Stockholm and Basel this fall.

His has form has been strong, as he and new coach Paul Annacone look to retrofit Federer’s game and prepare for 2011. This week in London Federer has been nothing short of impressive. Opening the tournament with a dominant 6-1, 6-4 victory over the always tough David Ferrer, Federer set the tone for the entire event.

But perhaps his most convincing performance came today when the Swiss took apart nemesis Andy Murray 6-4, 6-2 in a highly anticipated round robin match. Murray was the favorite coming in, considering the ease with which he dismantled the red-hot Robin Soderling in his opening match. He was an even heavier favorite considering that he’d bested Federer in each of their last two hard court matches, without dropping a set.

Federer’s performance puts him in the driver’s seat for the remainder of this event. The slower hard court surface used in the O2 Arena is absolutely tailor made for Federer’s game. Despite his vocalized complaints about the lack of fast hard courts on the ATP circuit, Federer’s recent losses to Djokovic in Flushing Meadows, and twice to Murray on quicker hard courts in Canada and Shanghai, show that while he may indeed prefer as quick a court as he can find when facing World number one Rafael Nadal, against the other two members of the top four, the slower the hard court the better.

It’s worth noting that against 95% of the world’s tennis players the court doesn’t matter. Federer wins regardless. However the athleticism, and early ball striking of guys like Murray and Djokovic, can present a difficult task for Roger. He’s forced to defend more than he likes, and takes more risks than he needs to.

So far in London, he’s had to do neither.

On a court like this, Federer is close to unbeatable; he showed that against Murray today. With the split second that a medium-slow paced hard court affords Federer, he can line up his shots from a stationary position and with frightening accuracy. If Roger Federer can set his feet and hit, he’s virtually untouchable. Ferrer and Murray learned that first hand. I suspect that Robin Soderling, will find out as well.

While Federer has set himself up as the frontrunner at this point, he’s hardly the only dangerous player. Novak Djokovic had a comfortable, workman like victory over the huge hitting Tomas Berdych.

Djokovic’s movement proved to overwhelm Berdych, leading to a shrinking of the court, smaller targets for the Czech, and a routine 6-3, 6-3 score line. Djokovic has admitted that having already captured a World Tour Final Championship back in 2008, his focus is more so on Serbia’s upcoming Davis Cup Final. Is this honesty from Djokovic perhaps a bit of ploy to downplay his chances, and try to catch people unaware? It could be the case. I take Djokovic extremely seriously in this tournament. As far a hard court players go, at his best, he has the best hard court game in the world. The problem for Djokovic is that he only hits is absolute highest level about once or twice a year. He used that card already in dismissing Federer at the U.S. Open. Anything less than his best will not get it done against Federer right now. While Djokovic has impressed in his opening match, I don’t think that they match-up is there for him in this event against Roger. Not on this surface. He will clash with Rafael Nadal, in a rematch of the U.S. Open. It should be an interesting match-up to say the least. The man known as the “Djoker” has a very serious chance to pull that one out.

Speaking of Nadal, it’s been a while since we’d last seen the World’s best tennis player.

Wisely taking time to rest a sore shoulder, this is the first action Nadal has seen in weeks. Rumors of him having tweeked an ankle last week in practice loomed large in his match against an in-form Andy Roddick.  The rust definitely showed. Roddick perhaps should have closed out the match in straight sets. I’m sure that the American would liked to have played Nadal on a faster hard court, but honestly any hard court surface should prove a decisive advantage for the huge serving American.

After getting down a set, Nadal rallied and began to produce the kind of tennis that has made him virtually unbeatable in big matches this year. This is an indoor hard court surface, not one that Nadal particularly enjoys playing on. There is a number of big hitting, hard court loving players in the field who chose this surface to play Nadal on. Simply put, in no way should he be the favorite to win this title. Yet, only a fool would bet against him.

The match, which ended with a compelling 3-6, 7-6, 6-4 victory for Nadal, provides a good omen for Nadal. This was probably the most difficult of the opening matches. Nadal did not play his best tennis all the way through, but despite finding himself in a early hole, at a venue where he failed to win even a match last year, he was able to play himself into form. Tough, hard fought wins are important for a player coming off a lay-off and lacking match toughness. The fact that he was able to still find his game in key moments is a side effect of the great confidence he has in his game right now. It’s the confidence that comes with having won three slams in a single year. It’s the kind of confidence that empowers a player to walk with a bit of a swagger. The kind of confidence I last saw in some guy named Sampras.

While in all likelihood, Federer will exit the round robin stage with the best record overall, and is basically a shoe-in to reach the Semifinals, picking an overall winner is still difficult. Honestly, you have to pick Federer against anyone, except perhaps Nadal.

The question is can Nadal get to the point of facing Federer in an important match here in London? I’m inclined to say yes. He may not get there with an undefeated record, but he is a fighter and one has to believe he will be there. There has been nothing that the Spaniard has set his mind to, which he has not accomplished. His sights are firmly set on capturing the WTF Crown for a first time.

In all likelihood the real question of the 2010 WTF will be an all too familiar one. Is Roger Federer capable of defeating Rafael Nadal when the pressure is on? Federer nation would answer with a resounding “yes”.

Rafa fans would point to the history between the two. Federer has beaten Nadal just once in the pair’s last seven meetings and not on a hard court since the WTF Semi-Finals three years ago in 2007. It’s a mental hurdle for Federer, perhaps even more than a tactical one. But he is in the best form of the event. That cannot be disputed, but will it be enough?

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Yes.

There comes a point in a great athlete’s storied career where he or she begins to make a cosmic transition in the eyes of the public. It’s a transition that rivals the ascendancy to sainthood. The human evolving into the divine.

Okay, so I’m overstating the matter a bit…but only a bit.

I don’t need to recite Roger Federer’s rap sheet. I really have no desire to, because after all we’ve heard it all before. If you’re one of the few souls on this planet who doesn’t know who this man from Switzerland is, then you’d better ask somebody.

The abridged version of his story goes something like this: Roger Federer is a living tennis legend.

There is nothing false about that statement.

However, greatness is a mantle which eventually crushes nearly everyone who has tried to wear it. For however exciting the rising action is, there will almost always be a fall from grace. For Roger’s good friend, and Golf legend Tiger Woods, it was a personal scandal that yanked him back down to earth.

Roger’s story is different. So far, at least to our knowledge, Roger has kept his nose clean. His family life seems picture perfect, and other than a vague allusion to a betting scandal that really has no direct involvement with the Swiss star, Roger remains a media darling. Roger’s “descent” (if you can call winning only one Major a year a slump), has been professionally. The public fascination with him is really product of his own doing. Smh, if only he hadn’t set the bar for his own success so damn high.

It’s utterly ridiculous.

The man better known as the Maestro loses a single match and there are whispers of his alleged demise echoing across the globe. On this very site, four to five articles pop up on the matter like weeds in a manicured lawn.

If he’s not bored by the mundane reality of week to week tour events, then he’s forever mentally handicapped, unable to close the deal.

If not that, then he’s experiencing the lasting effects of an illness which set in months ago.

I feel for Roger. Every aspect of his game comes under exceeding scrutiny, from the tension of his strings, to the placement of his hair, to the color of his Nike tennis apparel. We hold Roger to a standard so high that nothing he does positively will shock us, and anything he does negatively will be forever magnified. Perfection is what we demand of him.

Last Saturday, young Frenchman Gael Monfils took the court against Federer in the Semifinals of the Master’s 1000 Event in Paris.

Monfils had never beaten Federer before, and had taken only a single set from him in several encounters. Monfils showed glimpses of the talent most have known he possessed for years. For his part, Federer showed glimpses of the greatness he’s proven time and time again.

It’s was a high quality match, a see-saw battle which concluded in a decisive third set tiebreaker. Monfils got the win and advanced to the Final. Federer was sent packing. Instead of simply tipping a hat to Monfils, and acknowledging the fact that Roger has actually been playing quite well over the last few weeks, many fans have taken to psycho-analyzing Federer. His every shot is dissected and compared against his form from 2005, or 2006. The entertaining part of this entire fiasco is that we, the world class recreational club players that we are, seek to offer him advice.

Popular or not, the truth is that Federer is a human being.

He’s not a god, a demi-god, a wizard, or any other mythological creation we so often characterize him as. The man is going to fail sometimes. He’s going to win a helluva lot more matches than he’s going to lose. But every now and then, he’s going to be faced with a day of mortality. A day during which he will play high quality tennis, and lose. This isn’t something that we should expect to happen often, but it will happen occasionally.

My advice is to accept it and move on, because honestly it’s really not fair to Roger Federer. It’s even less fair to the guys who defeat him, for many it’s been a career long process of building a game that is finally good enough to beat Roger Federer. Perhaps we all need to have a bit more respect for the players of the ATP tour, including Roger Federer.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Men’s tennis is in an odd place. There are only two players worthy of in depth analysis, along with a handful of hopefuls who haven’t proven much more than the ability to hit a few flashy shots, dominate lesser players and occasionally push the world’s two best players.

Obviously, Nadal and Federer are thin a class of their own. Their rankings and stat sheets point to that unwavering truth. They have won a combined 24 Grand Slam Singles titles since 2004. To put that in perspective, 28 Grand Slams tournaments have been played during that span. Honestly, I’m struggling to hold back laughter at this point. That is 89% of all important tournaments played since 2004. This is a level of domination that has never been seen in tennis before and, quite frankly, I’m willing to bet the farm that it’s never happened in any other sport.

Federer and Nadal have been the only players to reach the number one ranking since early 2004, when Roger Federer wrestled the mantle away from American Andy Roddick. No one aside from Nadal has even sniffed the top spot. Men’s tennis has been a two man race for so long, that its prompted many former champions and media pundits alike, to proclaim that at least one of these two guys are neck and neck for the greatest tennis player who ever lived. The numbers support this idea, but does that make it true?

I caught a hell of a lot of flack about a year ago for introducing the idea. I knew what I was getting into, but I’ve never been afraid of a little confrontation. The idea was that numbers sometimes do lie. Perhaps as good as Roger Federer is, he’s benefited from entering his prime during what I call a “lame duck” period of men’s tennis. A time during which a changing of the guard occurred, an in-between time where the talent pool at the very top of the sport was a bit shallow. Boy, did I catch it! Honestly, I can understand why fans of the “Maestro” are sensitive about such an issue. I can see how people would think that I was dismissing their favorite player as a fraud. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it until the cows come home, Roger Federer is, without a doubt, one of the best tennis players any of us has ever seen. Federer is perhaps the greatest pure shot maker who ever lived and perhaps the only tennis player I’ve ever seen who actually fully lived up to his potential. I’ll give the man his credit. He’s earned it and then some, but with that being said, I’m not going to gloss over the truth.

I am a big fan of Andy Roddick and I admire the man’s heart and perseverance. Andy was a very good player, however, he was not a great player. Andy would never have touched the number one ranking at any time other than he did. Roddick is a solid top 10 guy and he’s been that for the better part of his career, but world number one caliber talent? No. Sounds harsh? I don’t believe it does. Roddick is a brutally honest guy. It’s one of the reasons I like him so much. He dishes it out and he can take it. Roddick is a guy who is maybe top five on a great day, but  whose game and talent would place him in the number six to ten range. He’s a strong guy, with a huge serve and a decent baseline game. He's also a guy who has one career victory over Andre Agassi, despite the fact that the majority of their six career meetings occurred when Andre was a senior citizen (by tennis standards), in his mid 30’s. Andy was in his early 20’s and his one victory over the aging Agassi came on grass at Queen’s in deciding set tie breaker, when Andy was arguably playing the best tennis of his life, during the summer of 2003. That tells me something right there.

I look at guys like Lleyton Hewitt, another former world number one and extremely hard working player. Hewitt was one of the fastest players in the history of the sport, yet his pedestrian racquet head speed and chronically low first serve percentage would have kept him clear of the number one ranking in any other era except the one in which he achieved it.  Lleyton is another very good player, who falls short of greatness. Definitely a top 10 guy in most eras, but not a guy who was ever going to pile up more than three or four majors.

The list goes on. I could bring up the two most talented head cases that’ve ever lived in David Nalbandian and Marat Safin. These guys were supposed to give us some entertaining rivalries with Roger Federer during the first half of the 2000’s, but both fell woefully short for one reason or another. Federer enjoyed a period for about a year and a half where I think he had no real shot of losing a tennis match.  While the players from 15 in the world on down to the challenger circuit were getting fitter, serving bigger and getting better in general, the talent at the very top of the sport hadn’t yet evolved. There was Federer and then about five or six hard working overachievers. Guys who would never be making Grand Slam Finals in any other era. They’re ball striking, firepower, movement and just overall talent wasn’t up to par. That’s the truth, like it or not.

In fairness, the same critical eye needs to examine Rafael Nadal’s rise to power. If we’re going to be realistic with Roger the same must apply to Rafa.

Frankly put, while certainly far more gifted players have come onto the scene since 2005 (namely Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Juan Martin Del Potro, Gael Monfils, and Jo Wilfred Tsonga to name a few), only Djokovic has show the ability to go all the way. Physically, these younger guys are the first of their breed. Big, fast and strong. Simply put, these guys, along with Nadal, are the best pure athletes the sport has ever seen. Arthur Ashe was a game-changing kind of athlete, followed by Bjorn Borg and Boris Becker.

Eventually Pete Sampras pushed the bar even higher, but today’s top players are physically superior to all of those legends. Being athletic is one thing, but the real active ingredient of a championship level tennis player is his shot making skills. This is where guys like Hewitt and Roddick fall short. Obviously, Federer and Nadal can both hit any shot in the book and few that aren’t in the book as well. But what of the rest? Del Potro is, without a doubt, a pure talent. We’ll have to see what happens as his career progresses. Murray and Djokovic have the hands and the ability to change the flight path of the ball on a dime. Monfils and Tsonga have perhaps the purest combination of raw speed and pure pace of shot in the world. But all of that means absolutely nothing if a player cannot stay healthy, or isn’t savvy enough to put his gifts to work correctly.

What we are left with now is a group of guys at the very top of the sport, who in stark contrast to the Roddick and Hewitt era, are very physically gifted but lack the mental fortitude and tennis savvy that Roddick and Hewitt had in spades. It’s like one group has what the other is lacking and only two guys in the entire sport have managed to put everything together correctly. What does mean? Well, it's simple. Both Federer and Nadal have benefitted from a less than stellar decade of competition in men’s tennis. In essence, they both have played in a relatively weak era. The only reason why their combined 25 Majors titles has real value, is because they’ve proven their worth against each other. In other words, I know Roger Federer is a great tennis player primarily because he faced Rafael Nadal and played him very tough most of the time. I know he’s a real champion because he defeated Nadal in the Final of Major Championship. Only great players can beat great players in big matches. Likewise, the fact that Rafael Nadal has beaten Roger Federer so many times in Major Championships proves how great a player he is. If one existed without the other, there is little doubt in my mind that we’d be witnessing Slam numbers that would obliterate anything that we’re even seeing now.

Does this mean that one is better than the other? Greater? I believe that these are two totally different things. Objectively, when I compare shot for shot, Federer at his best and Nadal right now, I think that Nadal is a better tennis player overall. He simply can do more and he seems to have a higher aptitude for the game. He can add things to his base game and transform his style in ways that I don’t think Roger ever did. However, the question of greatness is a completely different matter. For example, Marat Safin is superior tennis player than Jim Courier. He took the ball earlier, served bigger, returned better and was a better athlete all around. Yet, Courier is the greater champion. So it’s possible that when all is said in done, Nadal could be the better tennis player while Federer could be considered greater.

I will say that while the concept of “greatness” is, for the most part, an abstract idea, useful only to fans and lay people who want to argue their opinion, when a player accomplishes something so extraordinary as to set a record for most Grand Slam titles or do something which has never been done before such as to win four consecutive Majors on four surfaces, they at least beg to be a part of that abstract discussion.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

On the other hand, tennis is a violent war of attrition. Tennis is a cruel game which shows little love for its elder statesmen and legends. Perhaps I’m going too far, but then again maybe not.

Roger Federer entered the final round of the Tennis Masters 1000 event in Shanghai, China in devastating form. The 16-time major champion and single most decorated tennis champion in the history of the men’s game entered the final as a strong favorite.

With his long-time foil, Rafael Nadal making an early exit there, most experts believed that Roger had a decent shot at taking home in 64^th ATP singles title, and third of this 2010 season.

Considering the frightening ease with which Federer dismissed a potentially dangerous Robin Soderling, in a quarterfinal that lasted less than an hour, the expert opinion seemed right on target. Federer had also followed up that performance with another impressive, albeit much more competitive semifinal showdown with Serb Novak Djokovic, the very man who bounced him from this year’s U.S. Open in a dramatic five-set semifinal. The result this time was a straight sets 7-5, 6-4 victory. 

It looked to millions of faithful Federer fans as though Roger was ready to grab a record tying 18^th Masters 1000 crown. By the end of the day on Sunday, Federer would remain static at 17 titles.

Enter Andy Murray, a long time British hopeful and talented player with a knack for coming up a bit short in important matches. While Murray had a slight edge in their career head-to-head meetings, Federer had decisively won their only two Grand Slam final meetings.

The two men took the court and spectators expected a competitive match at the very least. It didn’t happen. Murray came out in smoldering form, he looked determined and Federer looked a little shell shocked. As Murray covered the court with extraordinary cat-like reflexes and slapped improbable dead-run winners, Federer looked helpless against the bigger, younger and ultimately better man. The result was a resounding 6-3, 6-2 thumping. Federer managed to win only five games in two sets.

In the grand scheme of things, Roger Federer sits amongst the very great players in the history of the sports. Sort of like David Beckham, Federer is a global icon, and one of the wealthiest, most recognizable and perhaps most beloved sporting personalities on the planet. His accomplishments on the court have garnered the Swiss player the love and admiration of both lay people and fellow players.

But like David Beckham, the myth of the man and the reality of his situation are no longer one. Federer is an aging champion. Yes, I know 29 is considered pretty young in most walks of life, but the reality is that tennis can be a discriminating, brutal and unforgiving sport. Tennis does not respect its elder.

The reality for Federer is harshly apparent. Shanghai can be viewed as a microcosm of his major dilemma. It’s a dilemma that such legends as Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras and Ken Rosewall also faced in the twilight of their careers. The tournament format is meant to benefit youth.

In their latter years, I sat in front of the television and watched in disbelief as Pete Sampras’ 2001 U.S. Open came to a crashing end.

In what had to have been one of the toughest draws in the history of the tournament, I watched Sampras conquer a red hot two-time champion Patrick Rafter in the round of sixteen with beautiful tennis. He then took that momentum and prevailed in four tie-break sets over the tournament favorite and former two-time champion Andre Agassi in one of the great matches ever played, then Sampras went on to defeat the man who had dismantled him in the previous year’s Final, Marat Safin, a young and in form defending champion. All of this and Sampras still had to play the Final.

By the time final Sunday came around, Sampras could offer little resistance against and much younger and hungrier kid named Lleyton Hewitt. Sampras would go down meekly 7-6, 6-1, 6-1.  The same happened to a 30-something Andre Agassi twice, in 2003 and then again at age 35 in 2005. Ken Rosewall twice felt the youth movement of his beloved sport in 1974, in the form of a youngster named Jimmy Connors.

While Federer might not quite be in his 30’s, the principal remains the same.

In a sport meant for players in their early to mid 20’s, Federer is finding out personally why it’s is so damn hard to remain at the top of the sport for more than a few years. Roger started Shanghai about as hot as we’ve seen him. He opened with a brutal second-round match against John Isner, one of the toughest guys to play on tour. He easily brushed Isner aside, and his form continued to get better. So Federer has proven that he still has great tennis in him.

The Soderling match was an eye-opener for us all. Federer is still more than capable of getting hot and having stretches of untouchable tennis. His decline is by no means complete. But what we also saw, and was especially evident on Sunday was the fact that it will be increasingly difficult for Federer to win important titles. Not impossible, but much more difficult.

As a player gets older, it gets tougher and tougher to step onto the court day in and day out and produce his best stuff. As the muscles start to get a little sorer, the joints stiffen just a little, and fatigue plays more of a role than it ever had, it’s just unrealistic to expect that Federer will be able to step onto the court day in and day out and play at the highest level.

We saw this at the 2009 U.S. Open, where Federer looked so great against Soderling in the quarterfinals, only to struggle to keep up with the younger Djokovic in the next round. We saw the handwriting on the wall as early as last year, when Federer straight settled the same Djokovic in an extremely high quality match in the semifinals before playing an erratic final against eventual winner Juan Martin del Potro.

If Federer comes out of the gates in smoldering form, he is capable of anything. Only Rafael Nadal can challenge him when things are clicking 100 percent, but perhaps the legendary Chris Evert said it best when she remarked about getting older, “You just have more bad days.”

It seems that Federer, though he will never admit it as his champion’s pride will not allow him to admit it, understands this.

He knows that he is still capable of great tennis, but he also knows that this is a young man’s sport and that it’s going to get increasingly tougher to win these big events, especially considering that he’ll have to beat so many younger, stronger, hungrier guys in succession in order to win. It’s a tough road to hoe, on that many a great player has been down.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Exactly one year ago, Rafael Nadal had lost his figurative mojo. A painful, chronic knee injury had sidelined the Spaniard for weeks earlier in the summer, robbing him of his opportunity to defend his maiden Wimbledon title. Nadal watched from home as his rival cleaned up during the summer months, taking Nadal's French Open title, Wimbledon title, and even his No. 1 ranking.

New injuries, including an abdominal strain sustained during the North American summer hard court swing, robbed him of pace on his serve and the ability to consistently hit his favorite inside-out forehand. Low in confidence, and heavy in heart (as Nadal's parents had divorced around the same time), Nadal made noble run to the U.S. Open Semifinals, but was completely out gunned by Argentine Juan Martin Del Potro.

The fall season following the U.S. Open saw Nadal play a packed schedule as he struggled to find his confidence and the form he exhibited from January until May, form which saw him become an utterly dominant world No. 1. Nadal's fall season was a smattering of quarterfinal, semifinal, and runner-up appearances.

He was too defensive, moved tentatively, and ultimately offered himself up as a target for players he usually owned head to head. The tennis world was a buzz. Many predicted that Nadal had seen his best tennis already, and even at age 23 (at the time) was in decline.

The critics couldn't have been more wrong.

Fast forward to the present. Things have taken a complete U-turn. Once again healthy, Nadal is the undisputed world No. 1. Having won three of the four majors this year, Nadal wrapped up the year-end world No. 1 ranking for the second time in three years. Perhaps most importantly Nadal has already completed the career Grand Slam.

He is only 24 years old.

Certainly, Nadal has inscribed his name amongst the very greatest players who have ever played the sport. Nadal's aptitude has allowed him to retrofit his game more than any other player in recent memory to fit the specific surface on which he is playing.

His newly introduced 135 mph-plus first serve is especially disconcerting to the rest of the field. If one can't get ahead on Nadal's serve, then just what are the options for beating him?

Rod Laver is a hallowed name in the sport of tennis. No one can argue against that. The man known affectionately as the "Rocket" pocketed two calendar slams, one in 1962 as an amateur, and another in 1969 as a professional. As amazing an achievement as this is, the truth of the matter is that three of the four Grand Slams were played on grass and the French Open was still contested on red clay.

While Laver still had to play at an amazing level to pull off the feat, let's be clear: Laver was an excellent grass court player. The fact that three of the majors were being contested on grass greatly helped his cause.

Rafael Nadal will go into the 2011 Australian Open as the clear favorite to win it. Nadal has won this tournament before, in 2009, defeating Roger Federer for the third time in four Major Finals, in a classic five-set Final. Should Nadal come through as expected, he will accomplish a one-of-a-kind feat: four consecutive Majors on four different surfaces.

The Australian Open is contested on a slow, high-bouncing hard court, while the harder, faster court at the U.S. Open plays completely differently. Winning four majors in a row is something once though unrealistic for a male tennis player—and rightfully so. The only men in the modern era to win three titles in four straight finals are Andre Agassi from 1999-2000 and Roger Federer in both 2006 and 2007. Prior to that it's only been done when three of the four surfaces were grass.

Whether he wants to admit it or not, Nadal stands on the cusp of something extraordinary. I'll even go as far as to say that it would be the most remarkable achievement in the history of men's tennis. To win four straight, whether in a calendar year or not, is something that most would have though impossible just a few years ago.

Then Federer stepped on the scene and showed us that maybe it could happen. The Swiss got within two sets of a calendar Slam twice in his storied career. Close, but no cigar. Ironically enough, the man who has denied Federer an additional five Grand Slam titles, Rafael Nadal, now stands on the bring of accomplishing this feat himself.

I have often said that the "G.O.A.T." debate is pretty moronic in nature. Too many eras, to many styles, too many factors to consider. I have held, and still do believe as of this moment that there is no G.O.A.T. player. Only a select group of 5-7 players who have accomplished something so unique, that they set themselves apart from their colleagues.

Both Nadal and Federer are already a part of this group. But one has to wonder, if indeed there is a player who is able to win four consecutive Majors, considering the playing conditions and surfaces differences, do these circumstances beg me to rethink my original stance?

Perhaps so.

Any player who can win four straight Majors on four different surfaces, especially in this modern day and age where hard courts take so great a toll on a tennis player's body, could perhaps have a legit claim to being called the greatest tennis player who ever lived.

Believe what you will, but I am just not willing to adjust this stance only because Nadal is the man who stands in prime position. If Federer had won four in a row, or if he does win four in a row, I'd have to perhaps reconsider in his case as well.

But the fact is that such a feat has never been accomplished in the men's game. We've seen Steffi Graf win a calendar Slam in the women's game, seen Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams win their own versions.

But in men's tennis, playing best of five sets, I think that such an accomplishment would demonstrate a level of utter domination the likes of which have never been seen before.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

The concept seemed a bit loony at the time. Federer was fresh off an apparent re-affirmation of lordship over men's tennis. Nadal had even more questions surrounding the condition of his precarious knees, staring down that barrel at a substantial layoff for the second time in a year.

Perhaps this was amongst the darkest hours for the then 23-year-old Spanish sensation.

Oh, so many predicted doom for Nadal. The vast majority of the allegedly "educated" tennis fans were certain that his Grand Slam window had indeed slammed shut. The Spaniard's game had been figured out; his Slam total would no doubt remain static at six. The six Slam mark did indeed put Nadal in elite company: a sure fire hall-of-famer, but still a distant 10 Slams back of the man who was the measuring stick in men's tennis, Mr. Federer.

It was thought that though Nadal often dominated Federer in their head to head match-ups, the disparity in size of their respective Grand Slam cabinets would be enough to paint Nadal as a footnote to Federer.

How wrong a concept that turned out to be.

While most of the world wrote Nadal off as a "has been" at the geriatric age of 23, I laughed. The thought amused me then and still amuses me now. It's striking how fickle fans can be. Hot one minute, cold the next. A dominant world number one this year, and washed up has-been after only one loss.

I wrote an article on February 25, 2010. An article that was meant to be a bold vote of confidence in a man that I knew was the best tennis player in the world, even when losing matches to players with half his talent and a quarter of his mental fortitude. It seemed crazy to predict that Nadal (who had fallen to number three, by the way, and appeared to be trending down) would finish 2010 as the number one ranked player in the world.

Believe me, people let me know that they thought I was delusional. No hard feelings.

Five months have passed since I predicted both Nadal's rise and Federer's struggles. Funny, I haven't heard much from many of my original critics. I wonder where they've gone? Are they even tennis fans anymore?

You might know him as Rafael Nadal, the current world number one by a margin. Or perhaps the 2010 Roland Garros Champion. Maybe the title of 2010 Wimbledon Champion is more suitable. Maybe you know him as public enemy number one.

Whatever title you refer to Nadal by, one can never again label him a clay court specialist. 14 consecutive Wimbledon victories, four straight finals, and two titles make Nadal at the very least amongst the most successful grass court players of the modern era. Mind you, he is only 24 years old.

It's high time the establishment, the fans and the entire tennis community, realized exactly what we are watching. While Nadal goes about his business in a starkly different manner than the beloved artist Federer, he is no less effective.

If Federer is the tennis equivalent of Peter Paul Rubens, the epitome of classic beauty and perfection, then Nadal is Salvador Dali. The portrayal of the strange, sometimes brutal, but always mind-blowing genius. He is an abstract revolutionary, one whose work will be admired and studied for years.

I applauded Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim for stepping up and acknowledging Serena Williams as the greatest female player of all time. Wertheim took a risk, stood up to the snobs and elitists who make up the majority of the tennis community and who fail to see past the outer packaging of Serena Williams, and recognized the pure brilliance of her dominance.

Preconceived notions can easily cloud our vision. In the spirit of full disclosure and honesty sponsored by Wertheim, it's time to realize the truth of the state of men's tennis. We are living in the era of Rafael

Nadal.

To admit this truth is not treason against Roger Federer. For five consecutive years, Federer ruled the sport with an iron fist, contemptuously swatting aside competition and regularly winning multiple majors per season. Roger is who Roger is. His reign did happen. Nothing can take away from that. He was a tennis player who evolved into a legend.

But it's been apparent since early 2009 that the "Maestro" is no longer the player he once was. It's not something to mourn; it's something to accept. The unfair standard to which he is held is only a recipe for disappointment. The sun rises, and the sun sets.

The Nadal dynasty began in 2008, but was briefly interrupted in 2009 by a fact of life on the tour: injuries. A few months of struggling with poor health and the deficient confidence that always accompanies any injured player who do not fully trust their bodies relegated Nadal to the "lowly" position of three in the world. It seems funny to describe a ranking of three in the world as "lowly."

Alas, Nadal found his legs, he found his belief, and he sent a stern message to the field: Try me if you will. The Soderlings and Murrays of the world, who themselves harbored dreams of number one, were decisively brushed aside at the French Open and Wimbledon. The statistics speak for themselves. Nadal: nine sets won, Murray and Soderling: a combined one set.

As the U.S. Open peeks at us from around the bend, the most grueling and physically punishing major of them all, Nadal still feels he has something to prove. But make no mistake; he has nothing to prove to you, to me, to the "tennis establishment", his eight Slams on three surfaces already put him amongst the best players of all time. His individual head-to-head records against the top Slam contenders speak for themselves.

Nadal is only out to prove, only to himself, that he can conquer the U.S. Open. If history is any indication, anything in the tennis world which he has set his sights on has become subject to him. From Roland Garros to Wimbledon, from Olympic Gold, to the world number one ranking. Smarter scheduling and new treatment for his chronic knee inflammation may just make his U.S. Open goals a reality. After all, it's been quite a while since anyone has beaten a healthy and energized Nadal.

The first decade of the 2000's will be an interesting time in tennis. Whether you are a Federer fan or a supporter of Nadal, the truth is that history will remember this decade as one of shared dominance. There is little real debate about who the world's best player was from 2003-2007; only a fool would argue that Federer was not the man during this time. It was one of the great four-year stretches in modern sports history.

But, likewise, only a fool would argue that we are not living in Nadal's era. With already eight Slams at the ripe age of 24, Nadal has at least three more full years of top form left in him. Who knows what damage he could in the record books before 2013, a full 10 years from Federer's inaugural Grand Slam win? It's very likely that for the first time in the Open era, we will have seen two 10-plus Slam winners within a 10-year span.

In truth, with every Slam title that either man picks up, he adds even more legitimacy to the other's career. So Federer is probably pulling for Nadal in those Slam finals and Nadal for Federer. All of a sudden, a 7-14 head-to-head doesn't seem nearly as bad when you consider the fact that the only guy to have Federer's number is a living legend himself. A 7-14 head to head looks a lot worse against a guy with two or three Slams.

I won't predict the U.S. Open right now, but I will project further. I'm saying it now: Nadal will remain number one in the world for at least another 52 consecutive weeks. He's shown himself to be a different level of player than the rest of the field. Much the way Roger changed the game and forced players to come up with new weapons, Nadal will do the same. Nadal will take another two years or so before anyone will be ready to push him aside permanently. In that time, who knows how many more Slams Nadal will pick up. I'd guess that he'll be a lot closer to Federer's tally than anyone expected.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com